The 2013 scifi romp continues. M. Night Shyamalan returns to direct this one so expect something more of a thriller, compared to the already announced action flicks oblivion, pacific rim, and star trek. I guess the cute part of this movie is that Will Smith's son Jaden will also be starring in this movie as ... will smith's son!
Storyline One thousand years after cataclysmic events forced humanity's escape from Earth, Nova Prime has become mankind's new home. Legendary General Cypher Raige returns from an extended tour of duty to his estranged family, ready to be a father to his 13-year-old son, Kitai. When an asteroid storm damages Cypher and Kitai's craft, they crash-land on a now unfamiliar and dangerous Earth. As his father lies dying in the cockpit, Kitai must trek across the hostile terrain to recover their rescue beacon. His whole life, Kitai has wanted nothing more than to be a soldier like his father. Today, he gets his chance.
It will be a good movie until some twist ending is revealed that makes no sense and kills the entire film. Every movie M night whatever has made has ended such and why he still gets to direct stuff is to me a mystery.
On December 15 2012 03:02 unkkz wrote: It will be a good movie until some twist ending is revealed that makes no sense and kills the entire film. Every movie M night whatever has made has ended such and why he still gets to direct stuff is to me a mystery.
probably his dad is already dead and he was talking to a ghost the whole time
M. Night Shyamalan you say, I'll not waste my time watching the trailer then. However good the material its based on is, he'll make a terrible childish not as clever as it thinks it is mess of this.
On December 15 2012 03:02 unkkz wrote: It will be a good movie until some twist ending is revealed that makes no sense and kills the entire film. Every movie M night whatever has made has ended such and why he still gets to direct stuff is to me a mystery.
Unbreakable was a masterpiece and I will resort to fisticuffs to defends its honor if need be.
On December 15 2012 03:02 unkkz wrote: It will be a good movie until some twist ending is revealed that makes no sense and kills the entire film. Every movie M night whatever has made has ended such and why he still gets to direct stuff is to me a mystery.
Unbreakable was a masterpiece and I will resort to fisticuffs to defends its honor if need be.
I just watched The Happening on TV with my girlfriend yesterday, and it was really, really, really terrible. I still like everything but the ending of Signs, but his movies have been shit for quite a while now.
This movie looks good, I think. And I haven't said that about an M. Night movie, uhh, ever. I really enjoyed the voice over Will Smith did in the trailer, maybe he could meet up with Morgan Freeman and become his successor or something (assuming Morgan Freeman isn't immortal)
On December 15 2012 03:02 unkkz wrote: It will be a good movie until some twist ending is revealed that makes no sense and kills the entire film. Every movie M night whatever has made has ended such and why he still gets to direct stuff is to me a mystery.
Unbreakable was a masterpiece and I will resort to fisticuffs to defends its honor if need be.
Might be, but that was a long time ago. What has he made since? The happening - shit, The village - omg so shit, the ending... just... then we have Signs who ends in the most bullshit way aswell. I hate him because the movies generally start of well, you get interested then BAM plot twist that makes no sense(The happening, it´s the fucking trees killing people, REALLY?!) and just kills the entire movie just making me shake my head feeling as i´ve been ripped off.
On December 15 2012 03:02 unkkz wrote: It will be a good movie until some twist ending is revealed that makes no sense and kills the entire film. Every movie M night whatever has made has ended such and why he still gets to direct stuff is to me a mystery.
Unbreakable was a masterpiece and I will resort to fisticuffs to defends its honor if need be.
Agreed.
OH yeah, OP why does the title say "Will Smith + Sons" with an s. Only his son Jaden is in this right? (Although my understanding is he has another son from his first marriage)
On December 15 2012 03:02 unkkz wrote: It will be a good movie until some twist ending is revealed that makes no sense and kills the entire film. Every movie M night whatever has made has ended such and why he still gets to direct stuff is to me a mystery.
Unbreakable was a masterpiece and I will resort to fisticuffs to defends its honor if need be.
Agreed.
OH yeah, OP why does the title say "Will Smith + Sons" with an s. Only his son Jaden is in this right? (Although my understanding is he has another son from his first marriage)
Will Smith <3 God every film he has done has been so sick, i can't fault many of the films he is attached with, and it's about time to see him back on the screen since MIB3 (and the 1year break he had prior to that!)
On December 15 2012 03:02 unkkz wrote: It will be a good movie until some twist ending is revealed that makes no sense and kills the entire film. Every movie M night whatever has made has ended such and why he still gets to direct stuff is to me a mystery.
Unbreakable was a masterpiece and I will resort to fisticuffs to defends its honor if need be.
Might be, but that was a long time ago. What has he made since? The happening - shit, The village - omg so shit, the ending... just... then we have Signs who ends in the most bullshit way aswell. I hate him because the movies generally start of well, you get interested then BAM plot twist that makes no sense(The happening, it´s the fucking trees killing people, REALLY?!) and just kills the entire movie just making me shake my head feeling as i´ve been ripped off.
His two movies, sixth sense and unbreakable were really good...and then he lost his touch for endings. The Happening is not only trees, its the whole nature, a metaphor of humans destryoing nature and nature is going on revenge to keep alive, kinda.
On December 15 2012 03:02 unkkz wrote: It will be a good movie until some twist ending is revealed that makes no sense and kills the entire film. Every movie M night whatever has made has ended such and why he still gets to direct stuff is to me a mystery.
Unbreakable was a masterpiece and I will resort to fisticuffs to defends its honor if need be.
Might be, but that was a long time ago. What has he made since? The happening - shit, The village - omg so shit, the ending... just... then we have Signs who ends in the most bullshit way aswell. I hate him because the movies generally start of well, you get interested then BAM plot twist that makes no sense(The happening, it´s the fucking trees killing people, REALLY?!) and just kills the entire movie just making me shake my head feeling as i´ve been ripped off.
His two movies, sixth sense and unbreakable were really good...and then he lost his touch for endings. The Happening is not only trees, its the whole nature, a metaphor of humans destryoing nature and nature is going on revenge to keep alive, kinda.
That it is, it is also the dumbest ending of all time
Well, I guess I'll wait for the ratings to come in before I even consider seeing anything by Shyamalan nowadays. Still, the cinematography looks pretty good.
On December 15 2012 03:02 unkkz wrote: It will be a good movie until some twist ending is revealed that makes no sense and kills the entire film. Every movie M night whatever has made has ended such and why he still gets to direct stuff is to me a mystery.
Unbreakable was a masterpiece and I will resort to fisticuffs to defends its honor if need be.
Might be, but that was a long time ago. What has he made since? The happening - shit, The village - omg so shit, the ending... just... then we have Signs who ends in the most bullshit way aswell. I hate him because the movies generally start of well, you get interested then BAM plot twist that makes no sense(The happening, it´s the fucking trees killing people, REALLY?!) and just kills the entire movie just making me shake my head feeling as i´ve been ripped off.
His two movies, sixth sense and unbreakable were really good...and then he lost his touch for endings. The Happening is not only trees, its the whole nature, a metaphor of humans destryoing nature and nature is going on revenge to keep alive, kinda.
That it is, it is also the dumbest ending of all time
not the dumbest. there are movies even worse. indepenece day for example, killing aliens, which have the technology to travel through space and have lasercannons, with what? a simple microsoft virus? no one knows what computersystem they have. even linus can beat these aliens. :/
last time i had a discussion on the movie looper, which made me think about its plot and the end is totally fucking up the whole film. in spoiler the explanation why: + Show Spoiler +
old joe is travelling back in time to kill the rainman, who killed his wife, and at one point, he meets and talks with his younger self, young joe. old joe says he knows everything what young joe knows, by the point young joe realizes it, cause they are both the same just differenzt times. which makes it one time line as young joe realizes something and old joe can remember it, no matter what. (no such thing like back to the future wich different time lines)
and now the fucking up aka grandfather paradox:
at the end, young joe realizes that old joe killes the mother of rainman and therefor rainman kills all loopers and it happens that old joes wife get killed too. young joe made the decision, that if he kills himself, there would be no old joe who killed rainmans mother, rainman would have no motivation to kill loopern and the wife would not be killed.
but when young joe dies, there will never be an old joe, rainmans mother would never die by him, rainman would later on have no feelings for revenge on the loopers and no old joe (who is dead for years now anyways) would travel back in time and young joe never has to make the decision to kill himself -> grandfather paradox
On December 15 2012 03:02 unkkz wrote: It will be a good movie until some twist ending is revealed that makes no sense and kills the entire film. Every movie M night whatever has made has ended such and why he still gets to direct stuff is to me a mystery.
probably his dad is already dead and he was talking to a ghost the whole time
Please put spoilers in clearly labeled spoiler tags thanks.
On December 15 2012 03:02 unkkz wrote: It will be a good movie until some twist ending is revealed that makes no sense and kills the entire film. Every movie M night whatever has made has ended such and why he still gets to direct stuff is to me a mystery.
Unbreakable was a masterpiece and I will resort to fisticuffs to defends its honor if need be.
Might be, but that was a long time ago. What has he made since? The happening - shit, The village - omg so shit, the ending... just... then we have Signs who ends in the most bullshit way aswell. I hate him because the movies generally start of well, you get interested then BAM plot twist that makes no sense(The happening, it´s the fucking trees killing people, REALLY?!) and just kills the entire movie just making me shake my head feeling as i´ve been ripped off.
His two movies, sixth sense and unbreakable were really good...and then he lost his touch for endings. The Happening is not only trees, its the whole nature, a metaphor of humans destryoing nature and nature is going on revenge to keep alive, kinda.
That it is, it is also the dumbest ending of all time
not the dumbest. there are movies even worse. indepenece day for example, killing aliens, which have the technology to travel through space and have lasercannons, with what? a simple microsoft virus? no one knows what computersystem they have. even linus can beat these aliens. :/
last time i had a discussion on the movie looper, which made me think about its plot and the end is totally fucking up the whole film. in spoiler the explanation why: + Show Spoiler +
old joe is travelling back in time to kill the rainman, who killed his wife, and at one point, he meets and talks with his younger self, young joe. old joe says he knows everything what young joe knows, by the point young joe realizes it, cause they are both the same just differenzt times. which makes it one time line as young joe realizes something and old joe can remember it, no matter what. (no such thing like back to the future wich different time lines)
and now the fucking up aka grandfather paradox:
at the end, young joe realizes that old joe killes the mother of rainman and therefor rainman kills all loopers and it happens that old joes wife get killed too. young joe made the decision, that if he kills himself, there would be no old joe who killed rainmans mother, rainman would have no motivation to kill loopern and the wife would not be killed.
but when young joe dies, there will never be an old joe, rainmans mother would never die by him, rainman would later on have no feelings for revenge on the loopers and no old joe (who is dead for years now anyways) would travel back in time and young joe never has to make the decision to kill himself -> grandfather paradox
so annoying and fuck up, had to say it again
ps: hope everything is understandable
Nope but then time travelling doesnt make sense in the first place, which is why it will never happen (but thats another discussion )
"Night Shyamalan is branching out, coming up with new ways to make bad movies. His plan must be to exhaust all possibilities, so as to eventually come full circle and make a good one by accident."
"After Earth merits comparison with 2000's Battlefield Earth, John Travolta's godawful film tribute to the sci-fi novel by Scientology founder L. Ron Hubbard. Yes, it's that bad."
""After Earth" is a work of hubris magnified by multiple miscalculations, the kind of film that would cause Ed Wood to excuse himself and skulk to the exit."
"Shyamalan is clearly a director-for-hire here, his disinterest palpable from first frame to last."
On May 31 2013 10:38 BlackJack wrote: I don't think his son co-starring with him is cute. I would call it nauseating. It's nepotism at its worst.
Eh in all fairness will smith is a legit actor and his son was in a few big movies too (uhm, 1? karate kid) so its not like the kid has no merit whatsoever.
Haha wow, they definitely kept it a really good secret that M. Night was the director of this. If you desperately want no one to know who directed it why the hell would you hire him in the first place? I guess a dude who averages like 12% on rottentomatoes is pretty cheap...
I was impressed by the visuals when I saw the first trailer. Will Smith is one of my favorite actors, but I do not like Jaden Smith. I'm sure he will improve over time, but I am not a fan of the movies he has been in. I'm not surprised that they kept M. Night Shalalamandingdong out of the trailer's texts. You only see his name on posters and not footage. I wonder what twist he will implement in this movie, but if he's smart, he would stop doing that. This looks like an easy pass for me and the only movies I plan on seeing is Man of Steel, World War Z (guilty zombie pleasure), and This is the End for the month of June.
Are M. Night Shamalyan's movies that bad? I mean ya, I disliked some of the twists in his movies and felt that had he left things as they were, everything was ok but there are some gems out there like "The Sixth Sense" etc...
On May 31 2013 12:32 BigFan wrote: Are M. Night Shamalyan's movies that bad? I mean ya, I disliked some of the twists in his movies and felt that had he left things as they were, everything was ok but there are some gems out there like "The Sixth Sense" etc...
Most are, yes. The Sixth Sense and Unbreakable are good. The rest... not so much. He went straight scooby doo in the village.
Just got back from it...twas decent enough. Jaden wasn't bad, and Will was solid as ever. Fairly predictable, though it was a twist at the end to see M Night Shamalyalyalyan's name up there.
I was somewhat interested in this movie until the RT reviews started popping up. I'm a sucker for sci-fi, but wow 13% is really bad. Even The Happening *shudders* got 17%.
On May 31 2013 12:32 BigFan wrote: Are M. Night Shamalyan's movies that bad? I mean ya, I disliked some of the twists in his movies and felt that had he left things as they were, everything was ok but there are some gems out there like "The Sixth Sense" etc...
Anything pass Signs were not good despite how lame the aliens were. Devil was decent, but nothing amazing or memorable.
On May 31 2013 13:20 ssxsilver wrote: I was somewhat interested in this movie until the RT reviews started popping up. I'm a sucker for sci-fi, but wow 13% is really bad. Even The Happening *shudders* got 17%.
On May 31 2013 13:20 ssxsilver wrote: I was somewhat interested in this movie until the RT reviews started popping up. I'm a sucker for sci-fi, but wow 13% is really bad. Even The Happening *shudders* got 17%.
The happening was a pretty cool idea for a movie I thought :p kinda survival horror type thing with an interesting plot, but the execution certainly could have been better than plants talking to each other.
Such a simple plot... Ship crash's, kid has to go on adventure to retrieve SOS beacon and proves himself to his father in the process. Hard to imagine how it could be so bad... Must have really tried to over complicate things :/
On May 31 2013 13:20 ssxsilver wrote: I was somewhat interested in this movie until the RT reviews started popping up. I'm a sucker for sci-fi, but wow 13% is really bad. Even The Happening *shudders* got 17%.
Wow. After Earth wasn't that bad.
How bad is it really? I was really looking forward to the movie and my friends and I were planning to see it but after the reviews started coming up we're like wtf.
Fear isn't a choice. If a fucking spider runs up on me, I'm going to freak out impulsively. "Fear isn't a choice, but courage is." <- much better slogan, let me write all the movies from now on.
On May 31 2013 13:20 ssxsilver wrote: I was somewhat interested in this movie until the RT reviews started popping up. I'm a sucker for sci-fi, but wow 13% is really bad. Even The Happening *shudders* got 17%.
The happening was a pretty cool idea for a movie I thought :p kinda survival horror type thing with an interesting plot, but the execution certainly could have been better than plants talking to each other.
God the twist of the happening was just so damn bad, i was angry at how bad it was. Worst plot twist in the history of cinema.
On May 31 2013 13:20 ssxsilver wrote: I was somewhat interested in this movie until the RT reviews started popping up. I'm a sucker for sci-fi, but wow 13% is really bad. Even The Happening *shudders* got 17%.
The happening was a pretty cool idea for a movie I thought :p kinda survival horror type thing with an interesting plot, but the execution certainly could have been better than plants talking to each other.
God the twist of the happening was just so damn bad, i was angry at how bad it was. Worst plot twist in the history of cinema.
But it had one of the best scenes in movie history where the two main characters ran away from the wind!
On May 31 2013 13:20 ssxsilver wrote: I was somewhat interested in this movie until the RT reviews started popping up. I'm a sucker for sci-fi, but wow 13% is really bad. Even The Happening *shudders* got 17%.
Why do people still believe the opinions of movie critics mean anything?
On May 31 2013 13:20 ssxsilver wrote: I was somewhat interested in this movie until the RT reviews started popping up. I'm a sucker for sci-fi, but wow 13% is really bad. Even The Happening *shudders* got 17%.
Why do people still believe the opinions of movie critics mean anything?
Well because in my case, movies I enjoy are typically higher rated. That isn't to say there are exceptions, my preferred comedies for example, but if I'm spending 10 dollars a ticket I think it's insane to at least not to research.
On May 31 2013 13:20 ssxsilver wrote: I was somewhat interested in this movie until the RT reviews started popping up. I'm a sucker for sci-fi, but wow 13% is really bad. Even The Happening *shudders* got 17%.
Why do people still believe the opinions of movie critics mean anything?
On May 31 2013 22:37 ComaDose wrote: I rank The Village below The Happening. + Show Spoiler +
the climax was a mentally challenged person in a monster costume fighting a blind woman in the woods+ Show Spoiler +
the blind woman wins and thats not even the last terrible twist
No way. At least the village had a kind of a cool twist, in the Happening + Show Spoiler +
the grass was killing people just because and there was something about hot dogs
I gave M. Night Shyamalan the benefit of the doubt because he deserved it for sixth sense and unbreakable but because of The Happening I will never watch one of his films willingly again.
I most certainly trust the opinions of movie critics over audience members. It doesn't take much to impressive the average person, who usually attends films to see special effects and mindless entertainment (I see this people everyday, I work at a movie theater). Critics look deeper into a film than the average movie goer, and I think they're a better indicator of quality.
On June 01 2013 00:11 Deadlyhazard wrote: I most certainly trust the opinions of movie critics over audience members. It doesn't take much to impressive the average person, who usually attends films to see special effects and mindless entertainment (I see this people everyday, I work at a movie theater). Critics look deeper into a film than the average movie goer, and I think they're a better indicator of quality.
On June 01 2013 00:11 Deadlyhazard wrote: I most certainly trust the opinions of movie critics over audience members. It doesn't take much to impressive the average person, who usually attends films to see special effects and mindless entertainment (I see this people everyday, I work at a movie theater). Critics look deeper into a film than the average movie goer, and I think they're a better indicator of quality.
So you only ever watch 'deep' movies?
thats not what he meant.
the average movie goer will focus on CGI,cute actress and disregard terrible acting,terrible twist and so on.
I understand his point but do not completely agree with it
On June 01 2013 00:11 Deadlyhazard wrote: I most certainly trust the opinions of movie critics over audience members. It doesn't take much to impressive the average person, who usually attends films to see special effects and mindless entertainment (I see this people everyday, I work at a movie theater). Critics look deeper into a film than the average movie goer, and I think they're a better indicator of quality.
Part of going to watch a movie is enjoying it and not necessarily critiquing every little detail. Not every movie should be critiqued like mad. What I mean is, if you watch the movie and enjoy it, that's all that counts. That and for movie critics, it's their job to critize so they have to find something (usually ). I remember watching some low-rated movie(s) a couple of times and the critics were completely bashing it/them but I enjoyed it/them and would watch it/them again
On June 01 2013 00:11 Deadlyhazard wrote: I most certainly trust the opinions of movie critics over audience members. It doesn't take much to impressive the average person, who usually attends films to see special effects and mindless entertainment (I see this people everyday, I work at a movie theater). Critics look deeper into a film than the average movie goer, and I think they're a better indicator of quality.
Part of going to watch a movie is enjoying it and not necessarily critiquing every little detail. Not every movie should be critiqued like mad. What I mean is, if you watch the movie and enjoy it, that's all that counts. That and for movie critics, it's their job to critize so they have to find something (usually ). I remember watching some low-rated movie(s) a couple of times and the critics were completely bashing it/them but I enjoyed it/them and would watch it/them again
I agree. Watching a movie is suppose to entertain you. I always get a laugh out of people who complain when a movie is unrealistic. If a movie was realistic, then it wouldn't be fun to watch. You are better off not even watching it since it'll be as realistic as life. There are some occasions where that type of movie can work, but most of the time you want to see a movie that can suspend your disbelief and just have fun watching. That is why I find horror movies hard for people to accept since the characters in the genre are often dumb for wandering off by themselves to only get killed. If a horror movie was realistic, then you can expect the characters to stay together and sit tight thus ending the movie in about 10 minutes.
I personally do not always base my movie viewing off of critics and ratings. Just because one person does not like the movie does not mean you wouldn't. It is better to just watch it yourself and see if you like it or not. If money is an issue, then there is always the matinee option where the ticket price is cheaper. As for After Earth, I'll probably won't see it since I do not like M. Night at all anymore.
On June 01 2013 00:11 Deadlyhazard wrote: I most certainly trust the opinions of movie critics over audience members. It doesn't take much to impressive the average person, who usually attends films to see special effects and mindless entertainment (I see this people everyday, I work at a movie theater). Critics look deeper into a film than the average movie goer, and I think they're a better indicator of quality.
I too work at a movie theater, and while I see your point I actually have started to trust the average viewer scores on these sites more than the critics. There are a handful of critics that write really good reviews, but the more I read them the more I get this feeling that most critics are jaded.
I seriously read a review for "Bad Teacher" that at one point said; "'Bad Teacher? Should have been called 'bad movie."' That's so fucking lazy. It takes quite a bit of work to make a movie, and only about a fraction of that time and energy to write a half-assed review that shits on the movie before people get to see it.
That being said... the critics were right about this one I feel haha.
On June 01 2013 00:11 Deadlyhazard wrote: I most certainly trust the opinions of movie critics over audience members. It doesn't take much to impressive the average person, who usually attends films to see special effects and mindless entertainment (I see this people everyday, I work at a movie theater). Critics look deeper into a film than the average movie goer, and I think they're a better indicator of quality.
Part of going to watch a movie is enjoying it and not necessarily critiquing every little detail. Not every movie should be critiqued like mad. What I mean is, if you watch the movie and enjoy it, that's all that counts. That and for movie critics, it's their job to critize so they have to find something (usually ). I remember watching some low-rated movie(s) a couple of times and the critics were completely bashing it/them but I enjoyed it/them and would watch it/them again
I agree. Watching a movie is suppose to entertain you. I always get a laugh out of people who complain when a movie is unrealistic. If a movie was realistic, then it wouldn't be fun to watch.
I feel like there's an important nuance to add here, even though it doesn't necessarily go against anything you said. There is a difference between being able to enjoy movies that are unrealistic and enjoying movies that break their internal logic. I have absolutely no problem with unrealistic movies (quite the opposite) and with suspension of disbelief, but I start to get annoyed when there are elements that contradict each other. For example, let's imagine a movie in which an intelligent character has a technology that instantaneously maps and displays all of his surroundings in great detail and to the extent that he chooses (he could map the entire planet if he wanted to). It's pretty unrealistic, but I'm perfectly fine with it. If that character gets lost with that piece of technology in his pocket and doesn't think about using it, however, I'm going to get annoyed (cough, Prometheus, cough).
Lack of realism isn't an issue, but logical inconsistencies are (I know that's not necessarily what was being discussed!).
On June 01 2013 00:11 Deadlyhazard wrote: I most certainly trust the opinions of movie critics over audience members. It doesn't take much to impressive the average person, who usually attends films to see special effects and mindless entertainment (I see this people everyday, I work at a movie theater). Critics look deeper into a film than the average movie goer, and I think they're a better indicator of quality.
Part of going to watch a movie is enjoying it and not necessarily critiquing every little detail. Not every movie should be critiqued like mad. What I mean is, if you watch the movie and enjoy it, that's all that counts. That and for movie critics, it's their job to critize so they have to find something (usually ). I remember watching some low-rated movie(s) a couple of times and the critics were completely bashing it/them but I enjoyed it/them and would watch it/them again
I agree. Watching a movie is suppose to entertain you. I always get a laugh out of people who complain when a movie is unrealistic. If a movie was realistic, then it wouldn't be fun to watch.
I feel like there's an important nuance to add here, even though it doesn't necessarily go against anything you said. There is a difference between being able to enjoy movies that are unrealistic and enjoying movies that break their internal logic. I have absolutely no problem with unrealistic movies (quite the opposite) and with suspension of disbelief, but I start to get annoyed when there are elements that contradict each other. For example, let's imagine a movie in which an intelligent character has a technology that instantaneously maps and displays all of his surroundings in great detail and to the extent that he chooses (he could map the entire planet if he wanted to). It's pretty unrealistic, but I'm perfectly fine with it. If that character gets lost with that piece of technology in his pocket and doesn't think about using it, however, I'm going to get annoyed (cough, Prometheus, cough).
Lack of realism isn't an issue, but logical inconsistencies are (I know that's not necessarily what was being discussed!).
That's not being realistic. That's just Ridley Scott being dumb, lol. But I know what you mean. When I say realistic, I meant scenarios in movies like the latest Fast and Furious 6. There is a scene of high performance cars taking down a plane by shooting a rope dart on the plane's wings and bringing it down.
I was pretty excited for this movie to come out but after reading reviews I am pretty disappointed on the scores it got. I figured Will Smith would have been able to save the movie but what more can you expect from M. Night. Will probably still go watch it tomorrow just with very low expectations.
On June 01 2013 00:11 Deadlyhazard wrote: I most certainly trust the opinions of movie critics over audience members. It doesn't take much to impressive the average person, who usually attends films to see special effects and mindless entertainment (I see this people everyday, I work at a movie theater). Critics look deeper into a film than the average movie goer, and I think they're a better indicator of quality.
Part of going to watch a movie is enjoying it and not necessarily critiquing every little detail. Not every movie should be critiqued like mad. What I mean is, if you watch the movie and enjoy it, that's all that counts. That and for movie critics, it's their job to critize so they have to find something (usually ). I remember watching some low-rated movie(s) a couple of times and the critics were completely bashing it/them but I enjoyed it/them and would watch it/them again
I agree. Watching a movie is suppose to entertain you. I always get a laugh out of people who complain when a movie is unrealistic. If a movie was realistic, then it wouldn't be fun to watch. You are better off not even watching it since it'll be as realistic as life. There are some occasions where that type of movie can work, but most of the time you want to see a movie that can suspend your disbelief and just have fun watching. That is why I find horror movies hard for people to accept since the characters in the genre are often dumb for wandering off by themselves to only get killed. If a horror movie was realistic, then you can expect the characters to stay together and sit tight thus ending the movie in about 10 minutes.
I personally do not always base my movie viewing off of critics and ratings. Just because one person does not like the movie does not mean you wouldn't. It is better to just watch it yourself and see if you like it or not. If money is an issue, then there is always the matinee option where the ticket price is cheaper. As for After Earth, I'll probably won't see it since I do not like M. Night at all anymore.
ya, agree with this although I still find some horror movies enjoyable lol as long as their is some plot and it's not a survive everyone getting killed to only discover it was on of your friends killing them(aka scream).
On June 01 2013 00:04 kwizach wrote: I won't be watching this, but I'm curious to know what the twist was. Could someone please explain it in spoiler tags?
edit: at least if there was one, from what I've read there possibly isn't one.
On June 01 2013 00:04 kwizach wrote: I won't be watching this, but I'm curious to know what the twist was. Could someone please explain it in spoiler tags?
edit: at least if there was one, from what I've read there possibly isn't one.
On June 01 2013 00:11 Deadlyhazard wrote: I most certainly trust the opinions of movie critics over audience members. It doesn't take much to impressive the average person, who usually attends films to see special effects and mindless entertainment (I see this people everyday, I work at a movie theater). Critics look deeper into a film than the average movie goer, and I think they're a better indicator of quality.
Part of going to watch a movie is enjoying it and not necessarily critiquing every little detail. Not every movie should be critiqued like mad. What I mean is, if you watch the movie and enjoy it, that's all that counts. That and for movie critics, it's their job to critize so they have to find something (usually ). I remember watching some low-rated movie(s) a couple of times and the critics were completely bashing it/them but I enjoyed it/them and would watch it/them again
I agree. Watching a movie is suppose to entertain you. I always get a laugh out of people who complain when a movie is unrealistic. If a movie was realistic, then it wouldn't be fun to watch.
I feel like there's an important nuance to add here, even though it doesn't necessarily go against anything you said. There is a difference between being able to enjoy movies that are unrealistic and enjoying movies that break their internal logic. I have absolutely no problem with unrealistic movies (quite the opposite) and with suspension of disbelief, but I start to get annoyed when there are elements that contradict each other. For example, let's imagine a movie in which an intelligent character has a technology that instantaneously maps and displays all of his surroundings in great detail and to the extent that he chooses (he could map the entire planet if he wanted to). It's pretty unrealistic, but I'm perfectly fine with it. If that character gets lost with that piece of technology in his pocket and doesn't think about using it, however, I'm going to get annoyed (cough, Prometheus, cough).
Lack of realism isn't an issue, but logical inconsistencies are (I know that's not necessarily what was being discussed!).
That's not being realistic. That's just Ridley Scott being dumb, lol. But I know what you mean. When I say realistic, I meant scenarios in movies like the latest Fast and Furious 6. There is a scene of high performance cars taking down a plane by shooting a rope dart on the plane's wings and bringing it down.
Yeah but if you'll note, Fast 6 has 72% on RT.
The difference between good and bad doesn't lie on realism (unless you're Perd Hapley,) it's in making sure the story isn't contrived and inconsistent within its own standards. Fast 6 is dumb because they meant it to be dumb and ridiculous. After Earth is dumb by poor judgment and it actually takes itself really seriously.
I knew this movie was going to be terrible when I saw the first few trailers and TV spots. The movie does not utilize it's biggest star in Will Smith because he plays an emotionless dick that you don't really like. His greatest strengths are his charisma, his charm, and his strong emotions on screen.
Dear Will Smith,
I do not know how long your career can stay afloat when you continue to try and prop up the metaphorical anchor that is your son's career.
On June 01 2013 00:04 kwizach wrote: I won't be watching this, but I'm curious to know what the twist was. Could someone please explain it in spoiler tags?
edit: at least if there was one, from what I've read there possibly isn't one.
I usually don't care much for critics reviews. I do give one guy extra credibility as far as reviews, and his rating system. Of his reviews, I've only ever disagreed once or twice. His rating for this movie was Dogshit.
On June 01 2013 00:04 kwizach wrote: I won't be watching this, but I'm curious to know what the twist was. Could someone please explain it in spoiler tags?
edit: at least if there was one, from what I've read there possibly isn't one.
Saw it and wouldn't see it again. Jaden needs acting direction, but as far as an actor goes, he has a lot of potential. The general writing of this movie was god awful and the messages they tried to push through never got there.
Wtf was with the ending. I mean seriously. The build up to him ghosting (which I feel was totally ripped off from several other stories about not showing fear) was the most random thing. The bird part was the weirdest most wtf why did they even write that into the script moment of the movie
On June 05 2013 09:09 docvoc wrote: Saw it and wouldn't see it again. Jaden needs acting direction, but as far as an actor goes, he has a lot of potential. The general writing of this movie was god awful and the messages they tried to push through never got there.
Wtf was with the ending. I mean seriously. The build up to him ghosting (which I feel was totally ripped off from several other stories about not showing fear) was the most random thing. The bird part was the weirdest most wtf why did they even write that into the script moment of the movie
just watched this. is good to watch at home, i wouldnt recommend a cinema viewing though, just not worth it.
having a super bunch of anxieties and fears myself, the movie had a good impact on me. i love stuff with "role models" like this and am easily and willingly influenced by them. at the end of the movie, i too tried to melt away my fears and felt a solid emotional change within myself. i love that shit.
you mention there are other movies with similar concept "which I feel was totally ripped off from several other stories about not showing fear" , care to name any of them?
edit: the end of the movie where the boy changes his expression to be fearless was great. contrary to what ninazerg said, fear can be overcome just with your mentality/psychology. its just really hard to do, but watching someone in a movie do it (or fake it with spot-on facial expression) can help you do it yourselff
On June 05 2013 16:49 Wegandi wrote: So, the verdict, Uwe Boll or M. Night. Who's worse?
well Mister Shamalalamalan at least did some good movies in the past. So I would say Boll is still worse.
No. Postal was a better movie then anything M. Night did.
Postal was awesome, Dungeon Siege was cool action flick with Statham and Lyotta in it, House of the Dead was pure awesome (became Uwe fanboy after this one) and Rampage even won some awards and is receiving generally positive reviews which means it's double awesome.
Very very interesting. I'd say I'm at the opposite in almost everything regarding teaching and learning, or even regarding the goal of life. Thanks for that awesome link.
And regarding worse movie made of all time it has to be The Conqueror made in the 50's by Howard Huges starring John Wayne. How bad was the movie?
If you disregard the poor reviews the film itself was made close to one of the above ground nuclear test sites of USA currently active during the 50's, namely the Nevada national security site. By 1980 91 of the 220 crewmen who were a part of the movie had attracted some form of cancer, even some of John Waynes friends and relatives who visited the film site got some form of cancer as well.
The people praising the film on imdb use nicks as "Joy2dai" and "simple_price". Ye, i'm a bit paranoid but this and the way they argue just reeks of the S-Cult.
Hmm. I'm not really sure where "Will Smith = awesome movie" comes from. The last time I was really fond of anything with Will Smith in it, was Prince of Bel Air.
On June 06 2013 01:23 Monsen wrote: Hmm. I'm not really sure where "Will Smith = awesome movie" comes from. The last time I was really fond of anything with Will Smith in it, was Prince of Bel Air.
Me neither. My girlfriend and I had a discussion about this yesterday and I asked her "has Will Smith actually been in anything good?" None of us could come up with anything.
On June 06 2013 01:23 Monsen wrote: Hmm. I'm not really sure where "Will Smith = awesome movie" comes from. The last time I was really fond of anything with Will Smith in it, was Prince of Bel Air.
Me neither. My girlfriend and I had a discussion about this yesterday and I asked her "has Will Smith actually been in anything good?" None of us could come up with anything.
Is this really fully written by Will Smith. I won't say it super bad but it really isn't a good movie... I really like how the critics of people saying their children can act better than Jaden which might be true. At least they are having fun promoting the films in Asia. Pursuit of Happiness might be the best I saw from Jaden but that when he is around 7 though.
On June 06 2013 01:23 Monsen wrote: Hmm. I'm not really sure where "Will Smith = awesome movie" comes from. The last time I was really fond of anything with Will Smith in it, was Prince of Bel Air.
Me neither. My girlfriend and I had a discussion about this yesterday and I asked her "has Will Smith actually been in anything good?" None of us could come up with anything.
Had this discussion a billion times, either you have not seen Independence Day, MIB or Ali or you just have taste that is different from 95% of the population. Also, I really liked Hancock, a drunkass Superman who doesn't give a shit, what's not to love?
On Topic: I won't even bother watching it, I didn't like his son in Karate Kid and I find it hard to believe that anythin good can come out of this constellation.
On June 06 2013 01:23 Monsen wrote: Hmm. I'm not really sure where "Will Smith = awesome movie" comes from. The last time I was really fond of anything with Will Smith in it, was Prince of Bel Air.
Me neither. My girlfriend and I had a discussion about this yesterday and I asked her "has Will Smith actually been in anything good?" None of us could come up with anything.
Had this discussion a billion times, either you have not seen Independence Day, MIB or Ali or you just have taste that is different from 95% of the population. Also, I really liked Hancock, a drunkass Superman who doesn't give a shit, what's not to love?
On Topic: I won't even bother watching it, I didn't like his son in Karate Kid and I find it hard to believe that anythin good can come out of this constellation.
Yeah, you're right- forgot about MiB those were pretty good. Wasn't very impressed by Independence Day though. Haven't seen Ali.
On June 06 2013 01:23 Monsen wrote: Hmm. I'm not really sure where "Will Smith = awesome movie" comes from. The last time I was really fond of anything with Will Smith in it, was Prince of Bel Air.
Me neither. My girlfriend and I had a discussion about this yesterday and I asked her "has Will Smith actually been in anything good?" None of us could come up with anything.
Had this discussion a billion times, either you have not seen Independence Day, MIB or Ali or you just have taste that is different from 95% of the population. Also, I really liked Hancock, a drunkass Superman who doesn't give a shit, what's not to love?
On Topic: I won't even bother watching it, I didn't like his son in Karate Kid and I find it hard to believe that anythin good can come out of this constellation.
Yeah, you're right- forgot about MiB those were pretty good. Wasn't very impressed by Independence Day though. Haven't seen Ali.
On June 06 2013 01:23 Monsen wrote: Hmm. I'm not really sure where "Will Smith = awesome movie" comes from. The last time I was really fond of anything with Will Smith in it, was Prince of Bel Air.
Me neither. My girlfriend and I had a discussion about this yesterday and I asked her "has Will Smith actually been in anything good?" None of us could come up with anything.
Had this discussion a billion times, either you have not seen Independence Day, MIB or Ali or you just have taste that is different from 95% of the population. Also, I really liked Hancock, a drunkass Superman who doesn't give a shit, what's not to love?
On Topic: I won't even bother watching it, I didn't like his son in Karate Kid and I find it hard to believe that anythin good can come out of this constellation.
Eh, I was pretty disappointed with Hancock tbh and if I would have guessed I'd have thought M.Night was behind that one too -_-
Otherwise I agree with Will Smith being a really solid actor, and really enjoyed I am Legend and a lot of his other movies. Did not care for Jaden in the Karate kid either, although I had some laughs, mostly watched to see Jackie Chan! :D + Show Spoiler +
Was hoping that he'd be able to carry M.Night out of his slump but damn, he finally made a movie worse than the Happening and it had to have Will Smith in it T_T
On June 06 2013 01:23 Monsen wrote: Hmm. I'm not really sure where "Will Smith = awesome movie" comes from. The last time I was really fond of anything with Will Smith in it, was Prince of Bel Air.
Me neither. My girlfriend and I had a discussion about this yesterday and I asked her "has Will Smith actually been in anything good?" None of us could come up with anything.
Had this discussion a billion times, either you have not seen Independence Day, MIB or Ali or you just have taste that is different from 95% of the population. Also, I really liked Hancock, a drunkass Superman who doesn't give a shit, what's not to love?
On Topic: I won't even bother watching it, I didn't like his son in Karate Kid and I find it hard to believe that anythin good can come out of this constellation.
Yeah, you're right- forgot about MiB those were pretty good. Wasn't very impressed by Independence Day though. Haven't seen Ali.
Pursuit of Happiness I Am Legend
indeed. quite a few good movies with will smith.
on the other hand... which will smith movies were not good? i cant think of a single one. only remember quite good ones, even though i'm totally turned off by movies usually.
On June 06 2013 01:23 Monsen wrote: Hmm. I'm not really sure where "Will Smith = awesome movie" comes from. The last time I was really fond of anything with Will Smith in it, was Prince of Bel Air.
Me neither. My girlfriend and I had a discussion about this yesterday and I asked her "has Will Smith actually been in anything good?" None of us could come up with anything.
Had this discussion a billion times, either you have not seen Independence Day, MIB or Ali or you just have taste that is different from 95% of the population. Also, I really liked Hancock, a drunkass Superman who doesn't give a shit, what's not to love?
On Topic: I won't even bother watching it, I didn't like his son in Karate Kid and I find it hard to believe that anythin good can come out of this constellation.
Yeah, you're right- forgot about MiB those were pretty good. Wasn't very impressed by Independence Day though. Haven't seen Ali.
Wait there are really people out there who like Independance Day ? oO I mean, the plot is so bad it's laughable, the POTUS attacking a spaceship in a plane, the lightweight patriotism, Will Smith's wife and the president's wife being two of the ten LA survivor and meeting randomly in the street, special effects that have terribly aged... Like everything in it is atrociously bad. I guess if you don't know much about so-bad-they-are-good movie (or nanar as we say in French), I guess this might pass as one, but you seriously need to watch Turkish Star Wars then... So yeah, it seems that MiB is the best Will Smith movie, not that bad all in all...
As for the movie, this looks atrocious, which is really sad because M. Night Shyalalalalam was a really promising director 10 years ago I mean, he's directed what probably is the best superhero movie to date, the defining genre of our generation's blockbusters.
On June 06 2013 01:23 Monsen wrote: Hmm. I'm not really sure where "Will Smith = awesome movie" comes from. The last time I was really fond of anything with Will Smith in it, was Prince of Bel Air.
Me neither. My girlfriend and I had a discussion about this yesterday and I asked her "has Will Smith actually been in anything good?" None of us could come up with anything.
Had this discussion a billion times, either you have not seen Independence Day, MIB or Ali or you just have taste that is different from 95% of the population. Also, I really liked Hancock, a drunkass Superman who doesn't give a shit, what's not to love?
On Topic: I won't even bother watching it, I didn't like his son in Karate Kid and I find it hard to believe that anythin good can come out of this constellation.
Yeah, you're right- forgot about MiB those were pretty good. Wasn't very impressed by Independence Day though. Haven't seen Ali.
Wait there are really people out there who like Independance Day ? oO I mean, the plot is so bad it's laughable, the POTUS attacking a spaceship in a plane, the lightweight patriotism, Will Smith's wife and the president's wife being two of the ten LA survivor and meeting randomly in the street, special effects that have terribly aged... Like everything in it is atrociously bad. I guess if you don't know much about so-bad-they-are-good movie (or nanar as we say in French), I guess this might pass as one, but you seriously need to watch Turkish Star Wars then... So yeah, it seems that MiB is the best Will Smith movie, not that bad all in all...
As for the movie, this looks atrocious, which is really sad because M. Night Shyalalalalam was a really promising director 10 years ago I mean, he's directed what probably is the best superhero movie to date, the defining genre of our generation's blockbusters.
MiB best smith movie say waaah? DO YOU EVEN PURSUIT OF HAPPYNESS BRO? So much manly tears... D;
Signs was definitely my favorite movie from M.Night, but I can understand why Sixth Sense did better in reviews. It is really sad to see him lose his groove though.
On June 06 2013 01:23 Monsen wrote: Hmm. I'm not really sure where "Will Smith = awesome movie" comes from. The last time I was really fond of anything with Will Smith in it, was Prince of Bel Air.
Me neither. My girlfriend and I had a discussion about this yesterday and I asked her "has Will Smith actually been in anything good?" None of us could come up with anything.
Had this discussion a billion times, either you have not seen Independence Day, MIB or Ali or you just have taste that is different from 95% of the population. Also, I really liked Hancock, a drunkass Superman who doesn't give a shit, what's not to love?
On Topic: I won't even bother watching it, I didn't like his son in Karate Kid and I find it hard to believe that anythin good can come out of this constellation.
Yeah, you're right- forgot about MiB those were pretty good. Wasn't very impressed by Independence Day though. Haven't seen Ali.
Pursuit of Happiness I Am Legend
[...] which will smith movies were not good? [...]
i really really didnt like that irobot movie.... grrrr.....
but his golden era was during MiB, Independence Day times I think. When he's allowed to just be his usual goofy anti-hero role. Pursuit of Happyness was a nice story too, but I dunno if his acting was good/bad.
And ofcourse the mass enjoyed MiB and the Bad boys series. With Ali, I Robot, etc etc I don't think he's doing too shabby. But can't say im immediately drawn to his movies, same goes for After earth.. Seeing an interview with his already hollywooded son kinda put me off. Feels gimmicky with the two main actors being family.
Surely no one expected anything good from this movie... I mean, let's be honest, it looked bad from the get-go.
Though, I don't dislike Woll Smoth. He's an alright actor and he's had some good movies. I liked the MiB movies (1 and 3, moreso) and Pursuit. Irobot was okay, but was a disgrace compared to Asimov's. It's just, this movie was destined to fail... and Smith's son is exactly a top-tier actor. So yeah.
EPT
At least we get superman.
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/KfBYLhC.png)
