|
Please title all your posts and rehost all images on Imgur |
On December 26 2012 16:19 MountainDewJunkie wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 15:33 LaiShin wrote:On December 26 2012 14:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Life of Pi - ZERO / 10
That bad of a movie huh? Mind sharing why? The movie (can't speak for the book) was a ripoff of several biblical tales, the movie Castaway, and had an ending that's exactly like a movie I saw as a child that was a survival movie (basically he told the truth but no one believed him, so then he told a second account that was so awful, they chose the first story as the lesser of two ghastly tales, intended for humor and meaning). The 3D was atrocious (I hate 3D, so I don't even dock points for it, just saying on a personal note). The entire movie was like a bad Peter Jackson filler. Billions of pan-outs to focus on nature scenes every 2 minutes. It was supposed to be a representation of the beauty of nature and the unspoken influence of God on surroundings, also a form of hope (beauty even in the face of hopelessness), but the scenes were too often and too close. It basically compensated for a weak and brief story with a bunch of pretty pictures. This movie also tried to use high quality CGI to make an unreal scenario as real-looking as possible, which sounds fine. But they screwed themselves because they incorporated semi-realistic survival scenarios with obscene bullshit and Deus Ex Machina, like finding flares minutes after he claimed that the breaching of a large sperm whale (or was it a blue whale... thinking blue.) submerged his handmade-raft in water and knocked off all supplies... Then there's when he made a raft out of floaty-rings, full-sized oars, rope, and some misc. stuff. Okay. Fine he's crafty, I'm with you. But when he outwits the Bengal tiger and traps him in the ocean in order to make him submissive (it makes sense in context), he pulls, from the lifeboat, this entire raft into the boat. Got that? A scrawny 90-pound 14 year old pulls a raft made of full oars and shit out of the ocean and into the boat. Fuckin' yeah right! Oh, and he spends days halfway submerged in the water of the atlantic ocean (on his little raft) and never catches hypothermia. And also, the water is perfectly calm and flat for days at a time. Again, middle of the Atlantic Ocean. My willing suspension of disbelief was challenged every fucking moment, that I just couldn't hold on.
You said it yourself though, they were bible tales. not real life.. ofcourse you were in disbelief.
|
On December 27 2012 02:30 Enki wrote:
Chronicle - Mediocre imo. Granted, it had some pretty cool scenes, by the characters felt so flat to me. I am actually suprised that they are making a sequel, as I really don't see what they could really do with it.
Interesting that you thought Chronicle was mediocre at best. I also saw it recently and thought it was quite decent for a super hero movie.
A couple of things made it stand out from the pack I thought. First of all, it's one of the only movies since Blair Witch to do shakey-cam correctly. They provide a believable explanation for why everything is being recorded, and then actually let you see what's going on during the action scenes. Most movies fail on one or both of these points, while I thought Chronicle did them well.
The thing that I really enjoyed, and talked a lot about with my friends, was the theme of power vs powerlessness. They did an excellent job of showing the amount of power that the villain had, but also showed that with all the things he could do, he was completely incapable of fixing the things that were wrong in his life. This might be reaching a little bit, but I thought it was an interesting look at the reasons behind things like school shootings and terrorism. All of this power for destruction at your fingertips, but no way to solve the things that matter to you. So what do you do? Do you lash out with random violence because you can, or swallow your pride? Led to an interesting discussion about what each of us would do or wouldn't do with similar powers.
Anyways, that's way more than I get out of the average superhero movie. Quite liked it.
|
On December 26 2012 20:19 ffswowsucks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 16:19 MountainDewJunkie wrote:On December 26 2012 15:33 LaiShin wrote:On December 26 2012 14:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Life of Pi - ZERO / 10
That bad of a movie huh? Mind sharing why? The movie (can't speak for the book) was a ripoff of several biblical tales, the movie Castaway, and had an ending that's exactly like a movie I saw as a child that was a survival movie (basically he told the truth but no one believed him, so then he told a second account that was so awful, they chose the first story as the lesser of two ghastly tales, intended for humor and meaning). The 3D was atrocious (I hate 3D, so I don't even dock points for it, just saying on a personal note). The entire movie was like a bad Peter Jackson filler. Billions of pan-outs to focus on nature scenes every 2 minutes. It was supposed to be a representation of the beauty of nature and the unspoken influence of God on surroundings, also a form of hope (beauty even in the face of hopelessness), but the scenes were too often and too close. It basically compensated for a weak and brief story with a bunch of pretty pictures. This movie also tried to use high quality CGI to make an unreal scenario as real-looking as possible, which sounds fine. But they screwed themselves because they incorporated semi-realistic survival scenarios with obscene bullshit and Deus Ex Machina, like finding flares minutes after he claimed that the breaching of a large sperm whale (or was it a blue whale... thinking blue.) submerged his handmade-raft in water and knocked off all supplies... Then there's when he made a raft out of floaty-rings, full-sized oars, rope, and some misc. stuff. Okay. Fine he's crafty, I'm with you. But when he outwits the Bengal tiger and traps him in the ocean in order to make him submissive (it makes sense in context), he pulls, from the lifeboat, this entire raft into the boat. Got that? A scrawny 90-pound 14 year old pulls a raft made of full oars and shit out of the ocean and into the boat. Fuckin' yeah right! Oh, and he spends days halfway submerged in the water of the atlantic ocean (on his little raft) and never catches hypothermia. And also, the water is perfectly calm and flat for days at a time. Again, middle of the Atlantic Ocean. My willing suspension of disbelief was challenged every fucking moment, that I just couldn't hold on. If everyone was thinking like yourself then all the zombie-movie genre is automatically crap. ( http://www.cracked.com/article_18683_7-scientific-reasons-zombie-outbreak-would-fail-quickly_p4.html ) So saying a movie is bad because it's science fiction isnt really valid points.
If you read the whole thing, you would see that I also said the movie is a ripoff of seven different things, and that the characters and plot are weak and too much time is filled with nature pan-outs.
|
I dare one of you to watch that movie and tell me with a straight face that you enjoyed it.
I said I didn't like the movie, someone asked why, I told them, then some of you ignored my points completely because you dislike my negativity. Basically, you can all watch this movie yourselves. That is punishment enough.
|
On December 27 2012 07:55 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I dare one of you to watch that movie and tell me with a straight face that you enjoyed it.
I said I didn't like the movie, someone asked why, I told them, then some of you ignored my points completely because you dislike my negativity. Basically, you can all watch this movie yourselves. That is punishment enough.
It's not really much of a dare to tell someone to say that they enjoy a popular movie.
|
Pitch Perfect - went to the movie expecting to be bored to death, its a chick flick after all ... walked out with a huge smile on my face and a crush on Anna Kendrick. Talk about FML moments lol.
|
I went to see Jack Reacher today. It was shit. I left with a headache. Someone commented after hobbit that too many movies are placing random forced humor. This movie is full of it. In general it's just terrible though.
|
On December 27 2012 00:44 ffswowsucks wrote:
Y'day night I watched Dredd with 3 friends. All 3 rated it with a 80+ score and I thought it was crap, 48/100 from me.
80 for me
good but not enough substance
|
On December 27 2012 11:48 Angel_ wrote:
I went to see Jack Reacher today. It was shit. I left with a headache. Someone commented after hobbit that too many movies are placing random forced humor. This movie is full of it. In general it's just terrible though.
Really? I came into that movie without much expectations and left surprised as hell at how much I enjoyed it. Good basic action/thriller while being fairly realistic (went into slight detail with the complexity of being a sniper, Camaro slid all over the road as it would have in real life while chasing the Audi), Tom Cruise's character was very moral with his violence which is refreshing (and no I'm not one that is bothered by violence in movies, but men actually having morals and being gentlemen seems to not be a priority in our society these days), and there were a few parts that where I laughed like the scene with the meth makers/dealers. Overall it wasn't a life changing movie, or the best action movie I've seen by far, but like I said it was very refreshing compared to most movies in the same genre that have came out in the last few years and unless you came into it with very high expectations (which idk how you would given the trailer...) then I guess we have very different tastes in movies.
|
On December 26 2012 17:35 Tibbroar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 15:19 itkovian wrote:On December 26 2012 15:04 Tibbroar wrote:On December 26 2012 14:35 itkovian wrote:On December 26 2012 13:43 StarStruck wrote:On December 26 2012 10:11 itkovian wrote:Les Miserables The acting was great. The cinematography was good. The story was cool. I didn't realize there'd be as much singing as there was; probably about 95% of all dialogue was through song. Personally, I would have left a few more choice parts as spoken words, but it didn't matter that much. The singing was generally solid. The weakest being Russell Crowe, and even he did alright. Anne Hathaway probably had the most solid performance. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Carter did a good job providing a lighter tone to the film. The movie dragged on a little long for my tastes. And I felt the climax was a little lacking. The action was weak and distracted me a bit from the movie, but its not what the movie was about, and so bears little significance other than making me cringe. There were also a couple cheesy moments, I thought could have been toned down. Overall, 8 /10 Oh, also, the over abundance of religious imagery grated on me a bit. Just too much. But maybe that's what its supposed to be like... I don't really know, it just got tiresome You didn't realize it was a musical? It's one of the greatest melodrama musicals of all time and that's what it's been about for the last twenty-five plus years when it comes to the stage, film and television. I guess your more familiar with the novel, but if you've seen the trailer you would know this one was going full-blown musical.  Don't worry, I realized it was musical, haha. I just didn't realize it was essentially alllll going to be singing. I don't watch musicals very often, so my recollection of their patterns is poor. But I figured most were about 50/50 in their dialogue delivery. I anticipated half singing, half spoken as normal dialogue. But it turned out to be like 95 / 5. Les Mis has substantially more singing than your standard musical, the stage show is more or less entirely sung. Spewking of singing, I officially hate whoever decided to cast that movie with hollywood actors/actresses instead of people that can sing. The movie accomplished everything it wanted to dramatically, but musically was an abomination. NONE of the characters are realized musically, absolutely unacceptable for a musical, and for one as renowned as Les Mis? People should be shot for pulling that crap. Hey, at least it wasn't as questionable as Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia. + Show Spoiler +Ya, I've watched it. It's like my mom's favorite movie, and she's seen it literally 20 times, so I felt obligated to watch it once. Actually not that bad for a feel good movie The singing in Les Mis wasn't too bad. Obviously not all top tier stuff. Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe were a little weak, but not terrible. Anne Hathaway and Amanda Seyfried did good. And some of the younger male actors have some experience singing in theatre I think. I actually think that for the general public it works very well, but I'm several years into a voice degree, and I have very distinct opinions in what sort of singing I want for that show. Honestly, I don't even like most of the singers that do it on broadway, I want a nearly operatic sound in that show. Suffice it to say, none of the cast meet that standard. Unfortunately, what I want and what most people want in that show differ, so it sucks to be me, I was waiting for that movie for over a decade too...
Ahhh, I see. I feel ya man. Sometimes it's nice to be part of the general audience because you can enjoy stuff easier. Once you become educated in a certain topic, your standards for the material raise and its harder for the material to meet your expectations.
|
On December 26 2012 17:35 Tibbroar wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 15:19 itkovian wrote:On December 26 2012 15:04 Tibbroar wrote:On December 26 2012 14:35 itkovian wrote:On December 26 2012 13:43 StarStruck wrote:On December 26 2012 10:11 itkovian wrote:Les Miserables The acting was great. The cinematography was good. The story was cool. I didn't realize there'd be as much singing as there was; probably about 95% of all dialogue was through song. Personally, I would have left a few more choice parts as spoken words, but it didn't matter that much. The singing was generally solid. The weakest being Russell Crowe, and even he did alright. Anne Hathaway probably had the most solid performance. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Carter did a good job providing a lighter tone to the film. The movie dragged on a little long for my tastes. And I felt the climax was a little lacking. The action was weak and distracted me a bit from the movie, but its not what the movie was about, and so bears little significance other than making me cringe. There were also a couple cheesy moments, I thought could have been toned down. Overall, 8 /10 Oh, also, the over abundance of religious imagery grated on me a bit. Just too much. But maybe that's what its supposed to be like... I don't really know, it just got tiresome You didn't realize it was a musical? It's one of the greatest melodrama musicals of all time and that's what it's been about for the last twenty-five plus years when it comes to the stage, film and television. I guess your more familiar with the novel, but if you've seen the trailer you would know this one was going full-blown musical. Don't worry, I realized it was musical, haha. I just didn't realize it was essentially alllll going to be singing. I don't watch musicals very often, so my recollection of their patterns is poor. But I figured most were about 50/50 in their dialogue delivery. I anticipated half singing, half spoken as normal dialogue. But it turned out to be like 95 / 5. Les Mis has substantially more singing than your standard musical, the stage show is more or less entirely sung. Spewking of singing, I officially hate whoever decided to cast that movie with hollywood actors/actresses instead of people that can sing. The movie accomplished everything it wanted to dramatically, but musically was an abomination. NONE of the characters are realized musically, absolutely unacceptable for a musical, and for one as renowned as Les Mis? People should be shot for pulling that crap. Hey, at least it wasn't as questionable as Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia. + Show Spoiler +Ya, I've watched it. It's like my mom's favorite movie, and she's seen it literally 20 times, so I felt obligated to watch it once. Actually not that bad for a feel good movie The singing in Les Mis wasn't too bad. Obviously not all top tier stuff. Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe were a little weak, but not terrible. Anne Hathaway and Amanda Seyfried did good. And some of the younger male actors have some experience singing in theatre I think. I actually think that for the general public it works very well, but I'm several years into a voice degree, and I have very distinct opinions in what sort of singing I want for that show. Honestly, I don't even like most of the singers that do it on broadway, I want a nearly operatic sound in that show. Suffice it to say, none of the cast meet that standard. Unfortunately, what I want and what most people want in that show differ, so it sucks to be me, I was waiting for that movie for over a decade too...
@ itkovian
The signing was great, even for professional musician standards. This guy didn't like the singing because he's a weirdo, not because he's musically trained. The majority of classically trained musicians I know (including myself) were perfectly fine with the singing.
|
On December 27 2012 13:41 Xenocide_Knight wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 17:35 Tibbroar wrote:On December 26 2012 15:19 itkovian wrote:On December 26 2012 15:04 Tibbroar wrote:On December 26 2012 14:35 itkovian wrote:On December 26 2012 13:43 StarStruck wrote:On December 26 2012 10:11 itkovian wrote:Les Miserables The acting was great. The cinematography was good. The story was cool. I didn't realize there'd be as much singing as there was; probably about 95% of all dialogue was through song. Personally, I would have left a few more choice parts as spoken words, but it didn't matter that much. The singing was generally solid. The weakest being Russell Crowe, and even he did alright. Anne Hathaway probably had the most solid performance. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Carter did a good job providing a lighter tone to the film. The movie dragged on a little long for my tastes. And I felt the climax was a little lacking. The action was weak and distracted me a bit from the movie, but its not what the movie was about, and so bears little significance other than making me cringe. There were also a couple cheesy moments, I thought could have been toned down. Overall, 8 /10 Oh, also, the over abundance of religious imagery grated on me a bit. Just too much. But maybe that's what its supposed to be like... I don't really know, it just got tiresome You didn't realize it was a musical? It's one of the greatest melodrama musicals of all time and that's what it's been about for the last twenty-five plus years when it comes to the stage, film and television. I guess your more familiar with the novel, but if you've seen the trailer you would know this one was going full-blown musical. Don't worry, I realized it was musical, haha. I just didn't realize it was essentially alllll going to be singing. I don't watch musicals very often, so my recollection of their patterns is poor. But I figured most were about 50/50 in their dialogue delivery. I anticipated half singing, half spoken as normal dialogue. But it turned out to be like 95 / 5. Les Mis has substantially more singing than your standard musical, the stage show is more or less entirely sung. Spewking of singing, I officially hate whoever decided to cast that movie with hollywood actors/actresses instead of people that can sing. The movie accomplished everything it wanted to dramatically, but musically was an abomination. NONE of the characters are realized musically, absolutely unacceptable for a musical, and for one as renowned as Les Mis? People should be shot for pulling that crap. Hey, at least it wasn't as questionable as Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia. + Show Spoiler +Ya, I've watched it. It's like my mom's favorite movie, and she's seen it literally 20 times, so I felt obligated to watch it once. Actually not that bad for a feel good movie The singing in Les Mis wasn't too bad. Obviously not all top tier stuff. Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe were a little weak, but not terrible. Anne Hathaway and Amanda Seyfried did good. And some of the younger male actors have some experience singing in theatre I think. I actually think that for the general public it works very well, but I'm several years into a voice degree, and I have very distinct opinions in what sort of singing I want for that show. Honestly, I don't even like most of the singers that do it on broadway, I want a nearly operatic sound in that show. Suffice it to say, none of the cast meet that standard. Unfortunately, what I want and what most people want in that show differ, so it sucks to be me, I was waiting for that movie for over a decade too... @ itkovian The signing was great, even for professional musician standards. This guy didn't like the singing because he's a weirdo, not because he's musically trained. The majority of classically trained musicians I know (including myself) were perfectly fine with the singing.
http://grammar.about.com/od/60essays/a/twowaysessay.htm
|
I saw Lincoln yesterday. Interesting movie but I thought it got a little slow towards the end. I give it about 8/10.
|
On December 27 2012 13:41 Xenocide_Knight wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 17:35 Tibbroar wrote:On December 26 2012 15:19 itkovian wrote:On December 26 2012 15:04 Tibbroar wrote:On December 26 2012 14:35 itkovian wrote:On December 26 2012 13:43 StarStruck wrote:On December 26 2012 10:11 itkovian wrote:Les Miserables The acting was great. The cinematography was good. The story was cool. I didn't realize there'd be as much singing as there was; probably about 95% of all dialogue was through song. Personally, I would have left a few more choice parts as spoken words, but it didn't matter that much. The singing was generally solid. The weakest being Russell Crowe, and even he did alright. Anne Hathaway probably had the most solid performance. Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Carter did a good job providing a lighter tone to the film. The movie dragged on a little long for my tastes. And I felt the climax was a little lacking. The action was weak and distracted me a bit from the movie, but its not what the movie was about, and so bears little significance other than making me cringe. There were also a couple cheesy moments, I thought could have been toned down. Overall, 8 /10 Oh, also, the over abundance of religious imagery grated on me a bit. Just too much. But maybe that's what its supposed to be like... I don't really know, it just got tiresome You didn't realize it was a musical? It's one of the greatest melodrama musicals of all time and that's what it's been about for the last twenty-five plus years when it comes to the stage, film and television. I guess your more familiar with the novel, but if you've seen the trailer you would know this one was going full-blown musical. Don't worry, I realized it was musical, haha. I just didn't realize it was essentially alllll going to be singing. I don't watch musicals very often, so my recollection of their patterns is poor. But I figured most were about 50/50 in their dialogue delivery. I anticipated half singing, half spoken as normal dialogue. But it turned out to be like 95 / 5. Les Mis has substantially more singing than your standard musical, the stage show is more or less entirely sung. Spewking of singing, I officially hate whoever decided to cast that movie with hollywood actors/actresses instead of people that can sing. The movie accomplished everything it wanted to dramatically, but musically was an abomination. NONE of the characters are realized musically, absolutely unacceptable for a musical, and for one as renowned as Les Mis? People should be shot for pulling that crap. Hey, at least it wasn't as questionable as Pierce Brosnan in Mamma Mia. + Show Spoiler +Ya, I've watched it. It's like my mom's favorite movie, and she's seen it literally 20 times, so I felt obligated to watch it once. Actually not that bad for a feel good movie The singing in Les Mis wasn't too bad. Obviously not all top tier stuff. Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe were a little weak, but not terrible. Anne Hathaway and Amanda Seyfried did good. And some of the younger male actors have some experience singing in theatre I think. I actually think that for the general public it works very well, but I'm several years into a voice degree, and I have very distinct opinions in what sort of singing I want for that show. Honestly, I don't even like most of the singers that do it on broadway, I want a nearly operatic sound in that show. Suffice it to say, none of the cast meet that standard. Unfortunately, what I want and what most people want in that show differ, so it sucks to be me, I was waiting for that movie for over a decade too... @ itkovian The signing was great, even for professional musician standards. This guy didn't like the singing because he's a weirdo, not because he's musically trained. The majority of classically trained musicians I know (including myself) were perfectly fine with the singing.
Few things I want cleared up here. Hugh Jackman is the winner of multiple Tony Awards for his stage excellence (specifically, Oklahoma, a musical.) Amanda Sefried has stage experience, Samantha Barks has massive experience, Anne Hathaway, while not professionally experienced, had the best performance of the movie. Marius and Enjrolas (forgetting the actors names right now) have had a little experience. Russel Crowe was the only one who i felt was a little weak, but certainly not as bad as a lot of people say he was (and sure as hell nowhere near as bad as Pierce Brosnan (shudder)).
There were very few action scenes in the musical, in fact the movie added much more action than there actually is typically, specifically during the confrontation with Javert and Valjean right after Fantine dies.
I thought this movie was great, I was moved to tears many times. I didn't expect it to be a lyrical beauty, because on the screen you should focus more on emotion than belting out those grand notes like Colm Wilkinson.
FYI I loved this movie lol
|
Note: Made this a seperate post because it is irrelevant to the former
Recently saw The Grey. Came in expecting to be a bad movie that was worth seeing only due to the presence of Liam Neeson, but surprisingly I was completely blown away. It was very deep and philosophical, every single character developed beautifully, the scenes were beautiful, and in the end it really made me think. I absolutely recommend it to many people, although if you are a bit squeamish, this movie has some gore and might not be for you. My advice is to watch it when you are really in the mood for something deep, and especially watch it at night. I feel it loses a lot of its effect if there are a bunch of bright lights. 10/10 IMO
|
Seconded the grey  pretty awesome movie.
and liam neeson is badass.
|
I didn't think it was possible, but Les Mis made me love Anne Hathaway even more than I did before.
|
On December 27 2012 10:35 FreakyDroid wrote:
Pitch Perfect - went to the movie expecting to be bored to death, its a chick flick after all ... walked out with a huge smile on my face and a crush on Anna Kendrick. Talk about FML moments lol.
glad i'm not the only one She is cute!!
Just saw Total Recall and Cloud Atlas over the weekend, both good movies, definitely entertaining.
|
On December 26 2012 20:19 ffswowsucks wrote:Show nested quote +On December 26 2012 16:19 MountainDewJunkie wrote:On December 26 2012 15:33 LaiShin wrote:On December 26 2012 14:52 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
Life of Pi - ZERO / 10
That bad of a movie huh? Mind sharing why? The movie (can't speak for the book) was a ripoff of several biblical tales, the movie Castaway, and had an ending that's exactly like a movie I saw as a child that was a survival movie (basically he told the truth but no one believed him, so then he told a second account that was so awful, they chose the first story as the lesser of two ghastly tales, intended for humor and meaning). The 3D was atrocious (I hate 3D, so I don't even dock points for it, just saying on a personal note). The entire movie was like a bad Peter Jackson filler. Billions of pan-outs to focus on nature scenes every 2 minutes. It was supposed to be a representation of the beauty of nature and the unspoken influence of God on surroundings, also a form of hope (beauty even in the face of hopelessness), but the scenes were too often and too close. It basically compensated for a weak and brief story with a bunch of pretty pictures. This movie also tried to use high quality CGI to make an unreal scenario as real-looking as possible, which sounds fine. But they screwed themselves because they incorporated semi-realistic survival scenarios with obscene bullshit and Deus Ex Machina, like finding flares minutes after he claimed that the breaching of a large sperm whale (or was it a blue whale... thinking blue.) submerged his handmade-raft in water and knocked off all supplies... Then there's when he made a raft out of floaty-rings, full-sized oars, rope, and some misc. stuff. Okay. Fine he's crafty, I'm with you. But when he outwits the Bengal tiger and traps him in the ocean in order to make him submissive (it makes sense in context), he pulls, from the lifeboat, this entire raft into the boat. Got that? A scrawny 90-pound 14 year old pulls a raft made of full oars and shit out of the ocean and into the boat. Fuckin' yeah right! Oh, and he spends days halfway submerged in the water of the atlantic ocean (on his little raft) and never catches hypothermia. And also, the water is perfectly calm and flat for days at a time. Again, middle of the Atlantic Ocean. My willing suspension of disbelief was challenged every fucking moment, that I just couldn't hold on. If everyone was thinking like yourself then all the zombie-movie genre is automatically crap. ( http://www.cracked.com/article_18683_7-scientific-reasons-zombie-outbreak-would-fail-quickly_p4.html ) So saying a movie is bad because it's science fiction isnt really valid points.
Funny how World War Z or I am Legend covered most of those facts lol.
|
On December 27 2012 07:55 MountainDewJunkie wrote:
I dare one of you to watch that movie and tell me with a straight face that you enjoyed it.
I said I didn't like the movie, someone asked why, I told them, then some of you ignored my points completely because you dislike my negativity. Basically, you can all watch this movie yourselves. That is punishment enough.
Saw it yesterday with 3 other people. I would rate it with a 6.5-7.0/10. a zero was a bit too much, dont you think? Our wives enjoyed it more. I prefer more action and more locations to be seen into a movie.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://ia.media-imdb.com/images/M/MV5BMTQ4NDI3NDg4M15BMl5BanBnXkFtZTcwMjY5OTI1OA@@._V1._SY317_.jpg)
