thats all i wanted to see too…in fact thats the only reason i went to see it. hands down, the pf dance was a million times better.
I think it’s kinda rank to do a dance scence based on Pulp fiction using the same two actors. It’s really kinda corny.
How was Andre 3000 in this movie??
[quote=“Dillontino”]
Cool… He resuses to watch it!
<LINK_TEXT text=“http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainmen … =y384x6358”>http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/story.asp?j=138405652&p=y384x6358</LINK_TEXT>
[/quote]
Smart man (as if we didn’t already know that!) – it was terrible.
Andre 3000 was very funny as well. The interesting thing to me is the big deal about the dance. The dancing is much more reminicent of Saturday Night Fever than Pulp Fiction (other than it being Uma and John). It is considerable more sexual than the Pulp Fiction dance.
[quote=“brides_head”]
Smart man (as if we didn’t already know that!) – it was terrible.
[/quote]
I hope that was a joke! take a hint in the web address
<LINK_TEXT text=“http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainmen … =y384x6358”>http://breakingnews.iol.ie/entertainment/story.asp?j=138405652&p=y384x6358</LINK_TEXT>
BREAKING NEWS! as at 31-03-2005, 21:49:53 it was!
i actually did enjoy andre 3000 though…he was funny
The dance was corny as well as Tito Puente and the Black Eyed Peas.
Cedric wasn’t as bad as he is in most other works he has taken on. The Rock was the highlight of the film - oh and Vince & Harvey weren’t bad either.
i hated the dance sequence because its seems very slow and i dont like black eyed peas so much :-</E>…twist style songs would be do it…
Black Eyed Peas are very cool. 8)
Wow I actually agree with Roger Ebert(scary):
Be Cool" becomes a classic species of bore: a self-referential movie with no self to refer to. One character after another, one scene after another, one cute line of dialogue after another, refers to another movie, a similar character, a contrasting image, or whatever. The movie is like a bureaucrat who keeps sending you to another office.
It doesn’t take the in-joke satire to an additional level that might skew it funny. To have The Rock play a gay narcissist is not funny because all we can think about is that The Rock is not a gay narcissist. But if they had cast someone who was also not The Rock, but someone removed from The Rock at right angles, like Steve Buscemi or John Malkovich, then that might have worked, and The Rock could have played another character at right angles to himself – for example, the character played here by Harvey Keitel as your basic Harvey Keitel character. Think what The Rock could do with a Harvey Keitel character.
In other words, (1) come up with an actual story, and (2) if you must have satire and self-reference, rotate it 90 degrees off the horizontal instead of making it ground level. Also (3) go easy on the material that requires a familiarity with the earlier movie, as in the scenes with Danny DeVito, who can be the funniest man in a movie, but not when it has to be another movie than the one he is appearing in.
why wont you see chainsaw massacre 2 or 3.those two where awsome!
They are not scary anymore and ruin all the Texas Chain Saw Massacre story. They are commercial as shit and the only thing that I’d like about them would be to see the killing scenes, but I don’t want to.
Well I saw the movie at the Cinema and it was OK. It wasn’t brilliant at all, but it had a few funny moments. I think that refusing to watch it is going a bit far…
It depends on who’s refusing. Even if it didn’t have the bullshit Pulp Fiction refecrence I’d never see it.
Well I saw it, and other than the dance and Harvey Keitel, it really wasn’t ripping anything off of Pulp Fiction. I had to review it for this high school district paper I write for (www.youthink.ca - I’m Sarah) and I thought it was entertaining, though not a blowaway by any means.
And I’m sorry - but I thought the chemistry was weak in Pulp Fiction but Thurman and Travolta managed to create enough sparks to light up one sad little Christmas bulb in this pic - if that. Luckily their not-so-torrid romance wasn’t really front-and-center.
One thing that bothered me: Harvey Keitel was there for no reason. I LOVE Harvey, but he had absolutely no purpose in the film so his mere presence bothered me. I was close to yelling: “You don’t hire Keitel for some no-name role - bastards.”
Overall the film was mediocre fluff.
My friends stopped it in the middle and simply couldn’t take any more. I watched the rest alone- I love movies.
Is ‘BE COOL’ cool? You don’t have to be Tarantino to feel the chaotic multi-million commercialized lamocomedy coming. You guys say it has a previous part so now it can compete with ‘The whole ten yards’ for WORST SECOND PART EVER and will probably win. I don’t know what this director wanted to show me but the idiotic laughter of the bunch’o famous actors throughout the whole movie reminds me of ‘Charlie’s angels’. It’s like the NAMES of contemporary cinema have been gathered together by the almighty dollar to do this and that and(most importantly) SHOW their faces so the money put in could multiply a few times. The one thing that a movie like this must aim is to make you laugh at all these stars fooling around and acting weird but ‘Be cool’ isn’t funny either.
In short- it has no soul and sucks less than black holes only bacause the latter is not scientifically proven. However, if you busy yourself with exams or any kind of work during the day, you may find a good rest for your brain with this…well SHIT.
i didnt like Be Cool that much i found it to be a little boring