CaptainFoamerang
-
Posts
1484 -
Joined
-
If Sean Connery was in it as well it would be magic.
-
I thought the camera work and bad dialogue hurt this movie. It had a few nice effects shots but it didn't feel big enough to serve as the movie to kick off the blockbusters for this year. Hopefully Sucker Punch will be that movie.
-
At first glance it seems like it might be okay, but it looks worse the more I look at it. If it's gonna shine, I'd prefer it look less plastic and reserve the shine to the parts that are supposed to be metal. Also don't care for the lipstick. And they should have stuck with red boots.
-
Quote:I've yet to see that one, and Tom Cruise was just as good as Colin Farrel in Minority Report.Originally Posted by Ironik
Definitely. Have you seen In Bruges? Amazing. He was the only good thing about Minority Report.
I have seen Alexander, however, and I still have nightmares.
-
Quote:He is? o.OOriginally Posted by Ironik
I can give you three solid reasons: bad writing, bad directing and bad acting. Watch that clip I posted above. It's amazing how bad it is. It's especially unforgivable for Colin Farrell to be that bad, since he's one of the best actors of his generation.
-
Also excited to see Voldemort and Bellatrix each dueling three other folks at once.
-
Quote:Kevin Smith has said he's just too lazy to do a superhero action movie.Originally Posted by QuiJon
On a totally seperate note, Kevin Smith. Just wondering why with all the feedback and fanboi attention that is given to this director/writer, why has no studio signed him on to do one of this midlevel comic movies. It just seems like even if the movie stunk that Smith's ties to the community alone would assure a good opening that would probably atleast earn back your investment. And I for one would be intrested to see how he would treat a subject he himself was a fan of.
linkage (language) -
Quote:13 pages, actually, most of the last issue of that arc. I would have preferred the finale to be more about, y'know, Daredevil since it was his title and story and all. Just didn't care to see Cap hijack the end of it.Originally Posted by PuceNonagon
Really? Cap is on, like, one page... total. Nuke, the "weird dude with an American flag painted on him" was in it considerably more, but he stands in stark contrast to Cap's minor presence, and is really the only reason he appears. Honestly, even with it's brevity, I thought it was one of the most powerful portrayals of Cap I had read to that point.
-
All I care about is seeing Mama Weasley yell, "Not my daughter, you *****!"
-
I was a little disappointed in Born Again. It started out okay then for some reason Cap and some weird dude with an American flag painted on him got involved.
I think I'd rather see an adaptation of the Out arc, where Kingpin gets toppled and Matt is outed as Daredevil. -
I picked up the first one on Blu-Ray recently. Glad to see the actors and creative folks are returning. Should be creepy.
-
It came off cheesy to me. /em shrug
-
Can't say I cared for the smoky effect.
-
Quote:That's kind of what I meant. It was like playing God of War 3 before God of War. I was a little upset that there was more characterization in the third Indy, though, because you'd figure the first film would have more set up. So I was trying to look at it with fresh eyes, but that end up hurting the experience more because I was wondering why I should care about this adventurer guy when I don't know about him and the film doesn't seem interested in remedying that.Originally Posted by Lothic
Yeah, that's the reason why I feel sorry for you.
You see I was able to watch Raiders back when it was cool (because no other movie of that franchise already existed that was cooler than it) AND then a few years later I was able to see Last Crusade when it was cooler still.
Basically seeing it "out-of-order" ruined your chance to appreciate that, for its time, Raiders was awesome... -
Quote:I know.Originally Posted by Defenestrator
Says the person who liked "National Treasure."
Cuz I already said I liked National Treasure. >.> -
Quote:Probably a world where I'm younger than you and therefore saw Last Crusade closer to its release date than Raiders.Originally Posted by Lothic
"Spoiled" would not be the word I'd use. I feel sorry for today's youth that perversions of nature such as this can take place. I frankly can't even imagine a world where I would have seen Last Crusade before Raiders.
Next you'll be telling us blasphemies like you liked the Star Wars prequel trilogy better than the original trilogy because that's the one you saw first.
And by spoiled I mean by the fact that they were able to throw in some characterization and better action in Last Crusade, so it had to do more with seeing a better quality film than seeing just any film first. -
Quote:I think it was the fact that I was spoiled by seeing Last Crusade before Raiders, but I stand by my opinion.Originally Posted by VoodooCompany
From reading your recent posts regarding movies, I'm thinking you're just doing this on purpose now
Though I did agree about one of them, then you just totally went nuts. So I know I'm right.
-
Quote:Except Raiders of the Lost Ark sucked. >.>Originally Posted by Defenestrator
Actually, they should have aimed to make it more like Raiders of the Lost Ark.
1) Jolie was a perfect fit for the role. She had the look and the physical ability to do the stunts. And she can actually act.
2) National Treasure sucked. So did its sequel. It was a dumbed down version of "The Da Vinci Code," which was already pretty stupid to begin with.
They spent all that money on special effects and big sets and stunts for the Tomb Raider movies, and forgot to come up with a competent script. Sad, really. -
Heroes for Hire written and directed by Quentin Tarantino.
-
Quote:You have to take into account that actors and creative teams, not just intellectual properties, can have their own built-in audiences as well. After The Dark Knight, a lot of folks were probably sold on just seeing Nolan's name in the trailers. Snyder's got his fans too. They want people to be aware of it, sure, but they probably don't have to work as hard on selling people on it.Originally Posted by Local_Man
It will be interesting to see how well "Sucker Punch" does. Like "Inception," it is an original story for the screen. Of course, one big problem with new, original stories is advertising expense. The studios have to spend a lot of money trying to get the audience to understand what the film is about because there is no basis for a pre-conception. Most people want to get an idea if the movie is something they will enjoy.
-
I'm surprised someone hasn't come up with a big friggin' chart showing how some of the most popular movies have just been rehashes of other ideas so folks would stop acting like Hollywood has only now been hit with a creativity vacuum.
-
Quote:The second one was fairly bland, but I enjoyed the hell out of the first National Treasure. At the very least, they effectively brought out the sense of adventure and discovery, which the Tomb Raider films didn't really do.Originally Posted by Antigonus
Really? I felt just the opposite. There was almost nothing about National Treasure that I liked.
Regardless, I completely agree with the notion of more gun battles and T&A. Every movie could benefit from those. -
If they had just made Tomb Raider a little more like National Treasure, except with more gun battles and T&A, it would have been golden from the start.
-
Well I think they could have gone with either this route or the "doubt he's a god but turns out he actually is one" angle similar to what was done in The Ultimates, so you would have people ******** about it either way.
-
See, if they wanted to actually focus on Darkseid this season they probably could have gotten a whole other season out of the addition of Superboy, which would have led to the return of Lex Luthor after activating Superboy as his sleeper agent.