movie seen

[calimac]

Safety Not Guaranteed

This is a quirky little independent film concerning a (possibly) mad inventor who is building a time machine to travel into the recent past.

I want you to see this movie. I want you to see it, and then I want you to look me in the eye, and tell me that you agree with me that it is a much better movie than Back to the Future.

If you can say that, I will be inclined to take your further recommendations for movies. If not, I probably won't.

Comments

[sturgeonslawyer.livejournal.com]

Haven't seen it, but it wouldn't be that hard for it to be better than the adventures of Marty McFly...

[sartorias.livejournal.com]

Sorry--I love them both, for completely different reasons.

[holyoutlaw.livejournal.com]

I'm close to sturgeonslawyer on this one. I missed the chance to see it because of school, or didn't think I was interested at the time. However! There have been a few low-budget sf movies in the last few years that I think are really excellent.

[anderyn.livejournal.com]

I want to see it, and since I wasn't all THAT interested in "Back to the Future" anyway, unless it's a real dog, I can't imagine I won't like it better.

[ken-3k.livejournal.com]

Echoing sartorias, I appreciate them both. Safety Not Guaranteed was one of a pile of about eight good-to-classic movies which brightened my Summer 2012. But the final Back to the Future movie, the Western one, is one of my all time sentimental favorites.

Consider that Back to the Future is about the actual act of time travel, while Safety Not Guaranteed is about the potential of time travel. Or, Back to the Future is more about plot, while Safety Not Guaranteed is about character.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

I haven't seen Safety No Guaranteed (though on your recommendation, I've added it to my Netflix queue). But I am uncomfortable with the use of "better" in your comparison. I enjoyed the Back to the Future movies, especially the first one. Saw all three in theaters in initial release, and not since.

But what constitutes "better"? To be sure, The Time Machine and Twelve Monkeys are better at speculating about time travel. The first BttF is a great deal of fun comparing 1950s and 1980s. "No wonder you have an actor as president"... and the whole scene where Marty tries to order a diet soda. The sequels follow familiar characters through internally plausible scenarios. The ending works pretty well.

For time travel movies, especially comedies, wear your heavy duty disbelief suspenders.

[randy-byers.livejournal.com]

Ooh! Ooh! Can I be the first to say that I haven't seen Back to the Future but enjoyed Safety Not Guaranteed? (I guess I'll find out once I post this.) The movie I liked it better than was Your Sister's Sister, which was another low-budget indie shot in this area and starring Mark Duplass. Completely different stories, so the comparison doesn't really make sense, but there you have it. Anyway, I wrote a little review.

[barondave.livejournal.com]

Okay, finally saw Safety Not Guaranteed. It was okay. But not better than that. A slightly lower-than-average episode of Twilight Zone or a slightly higher than average episode of Eureka. As time travel love stories go, I prefer Somewhere in Time.

I'm unlikely to consider well-written any movie that slings "retard" and "fuck" so lightly and without purpose. Compare Back to the Future where every line of dialog is important and/or character building. From the news on the radio as the main character wakes up to the name of the mall.

It had it's moments, and some of the acting was good. Still, SNG was poorly edited and not particularly well thought out. Why did Kenneth need weapons? Did he even think about returning?

The door works both ways: I don't think I'll be inclined to take your further recommendations for movies.

I may break this out to my own LJ or review. Y'never know.