Talk:The Cell (film): Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 02:03, 23 August 2009

	Film portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Film. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see lists of open tasks and regional and topical task forces. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the guidelines.FilmWikipedia:WikiProject FilmTemplate:WikiProject Filmfilm articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article is supported by the Indian cinema task force.
	This article is supported by the American cinema task force.

Science Fiction Start‑class

	Speculative fiction portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Science Fiction, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science fiction on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Science FictionWikipedia:WikiProject Science FictionTemplate:WikiProject Science Fictionscience fiction articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Gross

I edited the box office numbers. I do not know the overseas gross, but I do know the US gross, and it surely wasn't $111,543. It was $61,280,963, and your source is here. --Hellogoodsir 23:27, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy section

controversy |ˌkɒntrəvəːsi| |kənˌtrɒvəsi| noun ( pl. -sies) disagreement, typically when prolonged, public, and heated

One review, one reviewer, uncontested.

Not controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.46.253 (talk) 03:55, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

all Wikipedia articles, should adhere to the real world as their primary frame of reference. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.249.46.253 (talk) 03:28, 29 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Medved isn't the only critic to complain about J-Lo smoking a joint in the film. I remember a newspaper story in which the film was lambasted for showing a character who works with children smoking pot, and there was at least one other critic who I recall was rather vocal. I want to say Roger Ebert but I can't be certain. The Medved column I cited is the only professional critic's comments I could find currently online. If anyone can find other links -- including rebuttals to Medved's POV -- please feel free to add them. I have my own POV on this, but I only added it because it received media attention, which satisfies Wiki's notability requirements. 23skidoo 07:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I removed this section because only one source has been provided, and that hardly constitutes the fact that it is controversial, or even deserving of its own section. Besides the guy also goes on a rant about the baptism in the movie, he's just ranting for the hell of it. Something controversial receives mass attention, and this did not. --Speakslowly 04:56, 21 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Haha. I remember this fact throwing me off as a teenager. But now that I'm older... well, I re-watched the film with my boyfriend tonight and remarked to him that it was sort of a relief to see her doing so. It sort of set her apart from your typical, pretty, good-hearted heroine. She's still giving and good hearted, but she isn't perfect. I like that about her. She's sort of fearless. I can't imagine the uproar the scene caused... must've been quite rowdy. Regardless, I wouldn't change that part of the film for anything. I liked that it literally had nothing to do with the rest of the story and really didn't equate her to a flaming junkie, it was just a little realistic quirk. --68.92.52.3 05:25, 14 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I remember watching this movie and being pretty indifferent about her sparking up a joint. You have to remember that she is playing a character who "dives" into people minds and has to deal with the disturbing imagery within these minds. When i saw here light up a joint i just though, "Well duh, anyone who does here job would probably need a little ganja at the end of the day to relax and stay sane." I don't think there was much of a controversy here. I saw the film in a packed theater and nobody gasped at this scene. There were a few chuckles, but that's it. Elhector 18:40, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have to disagree. People are still talking about it. I put it back, since Medved is a notable critic. My edit uses the term "and others" and when I have a moment I'll do some extra research to find the "and others". To dismiss the section based upon anecdotal evidence (i.e. the reaction of an audience) goes against WP:NOR, whereas Medved's criticism was published widely (though the source I cite here is at present one of the only accessible online-archived sources). It doesn't matter if you feel the scene was harmless. The fact is a published critic (and others - again I'll add names when I have a moment) said otherwise. 68.146.41.232 17:26, 14 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I find it odd that this should get an entry, especially given the nature of the film, regardless of whether or not a film critic pointed it out (which doesn't constitute controversy). The film was rated R, and the person shown partaking of the joint was an adult (a responsible, accomplished professional adult, at that). Legal or not, many adults in such roles do smoke marijuana from time to time, and its portrayal in the movie was a refreshing dose of realism. Medved himself does not have an NPOV, so why should his comments warrant "controversy," especially in an internet era when it's quite easy to cherry-pick individual instances of commentary without looking at the larger picture- specifically, the lack of any mass public debate about this one scene. It seems to me to be more a case of some negative critical reception at best than controversy. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.65.124.250 (talk) 08:06, 19 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

This is not the least bit notable, except maybe for fretful but clueless parents, or alarmists with a censorship agenda. And Ebert appears to not have cared about it, FYI: http://rogerebert.suntimes.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20000818/REVIEWS/8180303/1023. He gave the movie four stars and doesn't mention the joint to my knowledge. That also just doesn't sound like him, I don't think he would waste time on something so trivial.VatoFirme (talk) 03:26, 27 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

It might actually be worth noting that a movie critic would care about a scene where a character is getting high, by herself, amidst about 2 hours of scenes involving torture and killing of kidnapped females. Are depictions of slow drowning and mutilation of tied-up girls acceptable entertainment, but a dipiction of J-Lo smoking weed isn't? Anyway, it seems to me that it is rare that a lead character, outside of Ice Cube's movies, is shown using 'recreational' drugs, so I vote for leaving the comment. There's not a lot of other things that would distinguish this movie, after all. C d h (talk) 14:36, 7 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This one scene has been discussed to death but something I would really like to know is what cartoon was she watching while smoking?137.229.70.176 (talk) 23:18, 12 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

White Dog

Does anyone know who the acting dog in this movie was? Or what species it was? It was a beautiful white dog, with blue eyes, a pink nose and pink ears. When I first saw it I thought maybe a white german shepard, akita or if they can come in all white a husky or maybe a wolf. TeePee-20.7 (talk) 14:31, 30 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Slight Problem

All I Need from Within Temptation is from an album released in 2007, with the video being released in the same year. This movie being released in the year 200, I find it quite hard that the scene where Jennifer Lopez is trapped is a box with reverse gravity is based on that music video. If anything, is the other way around. I'm going to delete that piece of information until I'm proven otherwise.