This is topic Ladder 49 in forum Film Handlers' Movie Reviews at Film-Tech Forum ARCHIVE.


To visit this topic, use this URL:
https://ft-forum.com/ft/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=4;t=000836

---

Posted by Don Anderson (Member # 397) on 10-01-2004, 02:52 AM:
 
Ugh. What a terrible waste of film. It was like watching "Towering Inferno" all over again. Enough with the jerky camera effect. How do Firefighter spend their free time???? Drinking, Drinking and more Drinking! Who's minding the station?? Dunno, and certainly don't care. Trimming 45 minutes off the runtime will not save this piece of crap.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-01-2004, 03:07 AM:
 
No, sorry, trimming 45 minutes off of this wouldn't have saved anything. This movie flat out sucks.

This movie starts out right at the end of the movie in the big fire scene, and then wastes an hour and a half of your time in a tv soap opera quality drama, then finally gets back to that one good scene with by this point, highly predictable results and a script fine tuned and rewritten over and over to attempt to produce the most amount of emotion from the audience. Blah!

I have really had it with these filmmakers telling the story in flashbacks and out of order. Tarantino can make it work, although I don't think it makes his films any better. A movie like Memento is the only time that kind of editing works. This one is lame, boring (yes it is LITERALLY boring) and pathetic.

BTW, the sound mix on this film is lousy. The surrounds are way too loud at times, background noise is frequently overbearing and much louder than the front channels, plus the actual sound effects are overdone in several scenes to the point of distraction. Whoever did the sound on this, you suck.

I could've crapped a better movie.
 

---

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 10-01-2004, 04:05 AM:
 
...I hope you don't start filming your toilet bowl, Brad.

The over-the-top drinking seemed a bit out of place and it's very obvious the film-makers were drunk since they didn't pay close attention to the detail of the shots. There's a lot of stupid mishaps that could have been avoided.
The jumps in the timeline don't work very well in this film. A couple in the beginning and a happy ending would have made for a slightly more enjoyable experience, but 6 reels of fun isn't going to do it for me.

However...In this movies defence, it could be construed as suspenseful and having a good twist at the end. In towns where the folks are easily amuse I suspect high grosses. Bracing for impact tomorrow night...
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-01-2004, 12:25 PM:
 
Screw you all...I liked it!

The shaky-cam scenes were a bit distracting. John Travolta was probably the weakest character in the film.

I agree with Brad on the over-bearing surrounds and other foley work. However there was some good stuff in the soundtrack too. The music was decent.

Having had to sit through the film nearly 3-times for screenings (it was filmed in Baltimore and was screened at the Senator theatre) I can say if it was boring it would have been hard to sit through it that many times...but I didn't mind it at all.

So far, I haven't seen a bad print of Ladder-49 either...I've screened two EK prints (naturally they were good) and one show print that looked nearly identical to the EK print...very sharp and steady.

As to the drinking and other stantionhouse stuff...perhaps one should get the opinion of a Fireman.

As to the movie itself...it rates a 3 out of 5 stars for me.

Steve
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-01-2004, 09:49 PM:
 
SPOILERS!!!

Maybe Buena Vista is hoping that everyone will seek to repay their debt of gratitude to firefighters by showing up at the box office for LADDER 49. Or maybe it is hoped that our post-9/11 love-affair with firefighters will make this movie critic-proof.

...or not.

The flashbacks are a dead giveaway that this script was in trouble. Flashbacks can work but, in general, they are a no-no in screenwriting. A film about a trapped firefighter would be more interesting to me if there could be a greater emphasis on the rescue attempt. The flashbacks communicated to me that no such thing was in the works. When the wife got pregnant, I just knew he was a gonner.

There is one interesting scene in the movie and it is the opening scene. Everything after that, beginning with the first flashback, is all downhill. And it honestly seems as though they gave up writing or editing the movie somewhere in Reel-5.

And what has happened to Joaquin Phoenix? He used to be really good-looking.

Final note: THAT AWFUL SONG over the closing montage had better NOT show up at Oscar time or I will completely lose faith in the Academy.
 

---

Posted by Scott Norwood (Member # 30) on 10-02-2004, 12:37 AM:
 
I kind of liked it. Yes, That Song was way over the top and some of the characters were pretty shallow, but there were some great scenes in there, too. I'd give it 3/5.

Since he didn't like Sky Captain or this, Manny obviously has no taste.
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-02-2004, 01:17 AM:
 
Both Sky Captain and Ladder 49 sucked. (Fortunately neither were quite as bad as Anchorman!)

Gee Manny, I guess we're the only two on here WITH good taste.
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-02-2004, 08:18 AM:
 
Hmmmm...The EK prints I saw had no ID frames left on the leader and the show print was run changeover on 20-min reel...perhaps it was the omission of the critical frames that runied it for Manny....Then again, Brad I'm sure saw a non-abridged version too but what does he know?

Steve
 

---

Posted by Don Anderson (Member # 397) on 10-02-2004, 10:24 AM:
 
The same type of individual that enjoyed CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN is loving this garbage. Some of the sound effects of crunching metal sound like they were pulled from the TITANIC film.I don't know about you, but we have had a ton of old retired Firefighters coming to see the film. Do you know how many stories I've had to listen to since Friday????
 

---

Posted by Manny Knowles (Member # 1171) on 10-02-2004, 01:28 PM:
 
Very funny, Steve!
 

---

Posted by Dean Kollet (Member # 1789) on 10-03-2004, 02:09 AM:
 
doesn't this movie remind anyone of um...
BACKDRAFT?
 

---

Posted by Dominic Espinosa (Member # 2122) on 10-03-2004, 03:32 AM:
 
We've actually had complaints about the sound mix on this movie.

*Spoilers*
IMHO the flashbacks should have been eliminated and the whole story should progress from beginning to end, he comes to the firehouse, the training, the fun times, the wife, the kids, and then the burnout and finally the big fire sequence from the beginning of the film.
In flashback form it's just annoying becuase it jumps back and forth.

Our prints looked great as well. Very bright, clean, and only one lab splice had to be removed.
 

---

Posted by Michael Schaffer (Member # 1204) on 10-03-2004, 06:11 AM:
 

quote: Dean Kollet

---

doesn't this movie remind anyone of um...
BACKDRAFT?

---

quote: Brad Miller

---

BTW, the sound mix on this film is lousy. The surrounds are way too loud at times, background noise is frequently overbearing and much louder than the front channels, plus the actual sound effects are overdone in several scenes to the point of distraction. Whoever did the sound on this, you suck.

---

Agreed. The ADR mixers did a terrible job on the surrounds and added special effects.

However, I did enjoy the movie. I don't think that the flashbacks detracted from the story. I, for one, feel like they actually added TO the story. You've go this firefighter who has flashbacks of his life while virtually at deaths back door. This accentuates the essence of his very being a firefighter. The 'togetherness' of the station, the love for his family and friends, as well as his desire to help people, were all demonstrated very well in this particular flashback technique.

IMO, seeing this film and saying it sucked due to the flashback method is akin to my stating that the folks who posted in the "What's the first film you ran on your own" thread suck. Well, if nothing else, because they tell a story of something that's happened to them in the past whilst they are here, today.



Overall, I liked this movie which is rare for me these days...I can't say it's worthy of any awards, but it is what it is..

4/5.
 

---

Posted by Adam Fraser (Member # 1074) on 10-05-2004, 10:56 AM:
 
I thought the movie was alright, but not great by any means. The story seemed disjointed.. more like a collection of scenes than a complete movie. Travolta was just in the movie for the top line on the marquee, his performance added nothing to the film. But with that said, we are doing good business with it, and the customers seem to enjoy it.. and that is all that really matters.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-05-2004, 02:47 PM:
 
I liked it!

quote: Brad Miller

---

This movie flat out sucks.

---

Brad, you are sooooo far out-to-lunch it's pathetic!

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Steve Guttag (Member # 268) on 10-05-2004, 04:54 PM:
 
Just when I thought life couldn't get any worse...Phil and I agree...<sigh>

You know, when you are about to die...your life is supposed to flash before your eyes...perhaps, "Jack"'s life didn't begin until he came to engine company 33.

I just had to screen the film again...sound tune up at a theatre...yes the surrounds and effects in this film are definately overbearing. Still a good movie to watch

Steve
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-05-2004, 06:38 PM:
 
Actually Steve, Phil hasn't even seen the movie. He just provides his reviews opposite of whatever I say, so take heart in knowing that you and Phil may or may not agree about this sucky movie.
 

---

Posted by Jeremy Fuentes (Member # 2135) on 10-05-2004, 08:49 PM:
 
Great movie!!
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-06-2004, 12:36 PM:
 

quote: Steve Guttag

---

Just when I thought life couldn't get any worse...Phil and I agree...<sigh>

---

I agree Steve. I thought a long time about that before I posted my review. But, I felt Brad's lack of any sensibility about quality films has once again FORCED me to post.

BTW Grand-Poo-BAH, there are such things as "Screener" DVDs even if we all cannot see a film in a theatre.

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-06-2004, 02:52 PM:
 
Yeah Phil I know all about those screener DVDs. I don't know why you keep mass-copying them and sending them to me and everyone else. You know I would rather wait and watch it on film in a theater.
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-06-2004, 03:02 PM:
 
Well Brad, let me set the record "straight" as it were.

1) I DO NOT copy ANY copyrighted material let alone any Screener DVDs.

2) I have to return my *encoded and unique numbered* copy back to the dist within 2 weeks else I will be "cut-off". (Sorta like sex.)

3) I forgot what the 3rd reason is.... DAMN!

(BTW: How do you like the quality of the labels on my DVDs?)

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Brad Miller (Member # 2) on 10-06-2004, 03:06 PM:
 
The third reason was that you don't actually watch the movies before you review them!
 

---

Posted by Phil Hill (Member # 371) on 10-06-2004, 03:09 PM:
 
(Good come-back! That's funny!)

>>> Phil
 

---

Posted by Mike Blakesley (Member # 26) on 10-06-2004, 04:49 PM:
 
One of my best friends is a firefighter in a nearby city, and I can tell you some of those guys do a lot of drinking on their nights off. I've heard some horrendous (but hilarious) stories.

Also: The comraderie at the firehouse really is like a family. Most firefighters work 24 straight hours, followed by 48 hours off. (Seems like a sweet deal, but do the math.) My friend has told me more than once that he thinks of the other firemen as brothers, rather than co-workers.

EDIT: I finally saw this movie last night. I thought it appeared to be quite accurate in its portrayal of the comeraderie of firefighters. The movie is really not only about firefighting. It's about the bonds of family that develop between those guys.

[ 10-24-2004, 10:08 PM: Message edited by: Mike Blakesley ]
 

---

Posted by Dave Williams (Member # 299) on 12-30-2004, 10:40 AM:
 

quote: Don Anderson

---

The same type of individual that enjoyed CHEAPER BY THE DOZEN is loving this garbage.

---

Ok I FINALLY went and saw this movie. I can't speak as to surrounds, because the dive I saw it in ran it in mono. Probably a good idea from what I hear.

As for the above qoute. I have said it before, and once again, do you HAVE to resort to insulting other people to show how much you like or hate a film? Have we as a race of people not advanced enough to allow our own opinions to stand on thier own without needing to stoop to such depths as to tell as many people as possible how smart you are by informing them of thier total stupidity?

I LIKED This film, and CHEAPER by the dozen too. LIkeing a film really comes from some need you have in your heart TO LIKE that particular film. Hating it comes from having a cold dead soul like you bastards!

But I digress. The film could have been edited differently for a better overall impact, but on its own it is a fine film for what it is. I enjoyed it, so did others as well. I see no need to pull people aside and tell them how dumb they are to make me feel smarter for hating it.

Now you know I love you all, and my comments are in jest. However the sentiment is accurate. I love to read all the comments on movies, just not insults of others.

And besides, how in the hell can you compare Cheaper to Ladder? ITs like comparing without a paddle and battlefield earth! WRONG GENRE DUDE!!!

Ciao mon

happy days ahead

dave
 

---