Its probably already been done but I really enjoyed Skyfall.
Movie review rant 2013
- Thread starter zooboy28
- Start date
- Status
this is a pretty funny Jurassic Park trailer video:
Last edited by a moderator:
for those who have seen the most recent Die Hard, here's The Editing Room's version of it: A Good Day to Die Hard: The Abridged Script | The Editing Room
zooboy28
Well-Known Member
for those who have seen the most recent Die Hard, here's The Editing Room's version of it: A Good Day to Die Hard: The Abridged Script | The Editing Room
How is it the abridged script? I don't remember that many words in the film.
Water for Elephants
I wanted to avoid watching this movie ever since that video came out claiming the elephant from it came from that company that beated their elephants. I decided to watch it to see if it had any value to it. The plot was predictable and it reminded me of a combination between Titanic and Moulin Rouge. The elephant abuse scene was horrible to watch. Despite the gruelsome act being heard and not seen, there were still times where you saw one of the actors jabbing at the elephant. It may have had a soft covering on the hook that we couldn't see, but jabbing is still jabbing! It almost seems like a perfect movie for PETA to have a field day. Elephants exploited for entertainment values, abuse going on behind the scenes, small confinement, and *SPOILER* .................................... an elephant killing one of its trainers. I was in awe seeing the elephant and almost wish the movie focused more on her. The two leads were going to run off with each other, but that also means they would have left the poor elephant behind with the enraged villian.
I am glad I did not pay to see it in the movie theaters and rented it at my library.
I wanted to avoid watching this movie ever since that video came out claiming the elephant from it came from that company that beated their elephants. I decided to watch it to see if it had any value to it. The plot was predictable and it reminded me of a combination between Titanic and Moulin Rouge. The elephant abuse scene was horrible to watch. Despite the gruelsome act being heard and not seen, there were still times where you saw one of the actors jabbing at the elephant. It may have had a soft covering on the hook that we couldn't see, but jabbing is still jabbing! It almost seems like a perfect movie for PETA to have a field day. Elephants exploited for entertainment values, abuse going on behind the scenes, small confinement, and *SPOILER* .................................... an elephant killing one of its trainers. I was in awe seeing the elephant and almost wish the movie focused more on her. The two leads were going to run off with each other, but that also means they would have left the poor elephant behind with the enraged villian.
I am glad I did not pay to see it in the movie theaters and rented it at my library.
has anyone else seen the new trailer for the second part of The Hobbit? Looks like there is still going to be a lot of the stuff I complained about from the first movie, including silly scenes and bad CGI. Wait for the appearance of Smaug at the end. It looks like they got a child to draw it on the screen with crayon. Really awful CGIChlidonias said:
Last edited by a moderator:
zooboy28
Well-Known Member
has anyone else seen the new trailer for the second part of The Hobbit? Looks like there is still going to be a lot of the stuff I complained about from the first movie, including silly scenes and bad CGI. Wait for the appearance of Smaug at the end. It looks like they got a child to draw it on the screen with crayon. Really awful CGI
Maybe it will be better at the movies in December. I hope so cos that does look quite bad, especially Smaug.
This is the End is fantastic
9.5/10 (would be a legit 10/10 had Paul Rudd been in it, it only really lacked a "straight" guy)
9.5/10 (would be a legit 10/10 had Paul Rudd been in it, it only really lacked a "straight" guy)
I watched Die Hard 4.0 again last night, on tv, and it actually wasn't that bad after all. I still have problems with the three stupidest moments in the film though (using a car to destroy a helicopter; the truck vs harrier jet piloted by the absolute worst shot in history!; and why the heck is all the gas on fire as it is going through the pipes?!?!). Also John McClane seems to enjoy murdering people just a liittttttle bit too much.Chlidonias said:
Overall its pretty good rewatching it. I might have to say it was better than number 5 now. Faint praise indeed!!
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
I must correct you here: that was an F-35 Lightning. It is/was a part of the Joint Strike Fighter program of which USA, Australia, Norway, UK and a few other countries were contributors. In Australia, we call it the JSF.
Anyway, it has 'short take off and landing' capabilities which are similar to the Harrier so that was a fair mistake. This was the aircraft's debut in a movie, and it should be noted that the hovering ability is extremely exaggerated - they make it as agile as an alien space ship!!
My favourite JSF memory is this: I went to a conference once and there was an American General presenting. He said "I wish we had this aircraft when we were doing God's work in Iraq".
before I posted I actually checked if it was a harrier because I knew if I said it was a harrier and it wasn't then "somebody" would pull a Chlidonias and correct me. So I googled it and found out it was an F35 but I also gathered it was a harrier (that is, a harrier of the model F35, because that is what the sites seemed to be saying). So I just went ahead and put harrier jet. Obviously I know nothing about aircraft. I thought harriers were a type of aircraft with different models; is that not the case? (From your post above I am guessing that a harrier jet is the name of a specific aircraft).I must correct you here: that was an F-35 Lightning. It is/was a part of the Joint Strike Fighter program of which USA, Australia, Norway, UK and a few other countries were contributors. In Australia, we call it the JSF.
Anyway, it has 'short take off and landing' capabilities which are similar to the Harrier so that was a fair mistake. This was the aircraft's debut in a movie, and it should be noted that the hovering ability is extremely exaggerated - they make it as agile as an alien space ship!!
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
The Harrier is a British jet from the 80s that is now being replaced by the F35. Although there are a few variants of the Harrier, the term is usually reserved for just the British Harrier jump jet, and is not used in reference to the F35.
I am no aircraft expert either but I have an F35 lapel pin, so I thought that I would read up on it to have an educated response when asked "Cool pin. What kind of plane is it?"
that video clip misses out all the preceding bit where the F35 is firing its missile dealies at the truck and continually missing!! Maybe the pilot's glasses got fogged up in all the terrorist excitement so he couldn't see properly.
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
How long is the runway in Fast & Furious 6?
Action movie Fast & Furious 6 has been a huge global success - but it would take a very long runway to make one climatic scene a reality, finds Ben Carter.
Read more:
BBC News - How long is the runway in Fast & Furious 6?
Action movie Fast & Furious 6 has been a huge global success - but it would take a very long runway to make one climatic scene a reality, finds Ben Carter.
Read more:
BBC News - How long is the runway in Fast & Furious 6?
see also here (on one of my favourite sites): Fast and Furious 6: The Abridged Script | The Editing Room
I may go see this movie today because it is its last screening in Hokitika. But I know its stupidity will just make me angry enough to go punch a handicapped puppy in the face. Hard decision to make.
It was the glare reflected off of Bruce Willis's head that blinded the pilot.
nanoboy
Well-Known Member
I can't wait to read your review. I am a huge Fast and Furious fan, but I leave the rational part of my brain outside the theatre before any F&F movies.
David, you're late to the party.
Speaking of which, has anyone seen 'The Intern' yet? It looks to be a funny movie. I wonder if those guys are acting the same roles as they did in 'Wedding Crashers'? 
Okay, so I did go see Fast And Furious 6. I was actually embarrassed buying the ticket. I'd seen about half of one of the previous movies (the one in Brazil) on tv a while ago so I was already informed of the content of the movie, i.e. fast cars and furious something something. I don't know.
Anyway, it's pretty much a live-action cartoon. There's not really any attempt at reality which makes it all right. Not good, but at least not a Simon Sez type of action movie. They apparently don't have physics and such lame-ass things in the Fast and Furious universe, which is lucky when you're jumping off bridges onto moving cars or flipping tanks with a Mustang. So long as you're not the sort of person who complains that Wile E. Coyote should have suffered serious brain trauma from being hit with that anvil then you'll be fine.
It was certainly amusing watching Vin Diesel standing next to the Rock, trying to still look big and muscly. Na-ah, you're standing next to the Rock, fella. And another thing, tell me again why Vin Diesel is a star? You can't understand what he's saying and his head looks like a potato! And not one of those good-looking potatoes either.
What I didn't like, in particular (because of course I am one of those people who complain that Wile E. Coyote should have suffered serious brain trauma from being hit with that anvil):
1) It's a movie about racing. The opening scene is of two CGI cars racing around a windy cliff-top road! CGI, goddamit! Get some real driving! And then later there was a chase scene in a tunnel, where the footage was sped-up to make it look faster and more dangerous, and even that one included CGI. If I had bought any jaffas I would have thrown them at the screen in disgust, but I'm too cheap.
2) There were two hot girls in the movie. Both of them died. That left Michelle Rodriguez. Seriously?! However I did appreciate that the movie-makers realised that Michelle Rodriguez could in no way (even in the physics-free Fast and Furious universe) win in a fight to the death with Gina Carano, so they had her cheat in order to kill her. But, contrasting that, the reveal of Gina Carano being a mole was completely pointless! And in retrospect it called into question why the fight with Michelle Rodriguez had even taken place earlier in the subway -- they were both on the same side at that point!
What I did like:
1) Gina Carano
2) Gal Gadot
3) cameo by Jason Statham. There were just four other people in the movie theatre. Two of them I think were homeless people trying to keep warm. But anyway, when Statham appeared one of them went "Yee-aah!", and yes that sounded as retarded in real life as it looks written down.
If I was to rate this movie I would give it a.....2. Out of 10. It was actually kind of boring come to think of it. I did like the runway action scene at the end, and (honestly) I didn't even notice how long it would have needed to be.
Oh, also, big SPOILER! Vin Diesel's character is a T-1000!? What the heck!
Anyway, it's pretty much a live-action cartoon. There's not really any attempt at reality which makes it all right. Not good, but at least not a Simon Sez type of action movie. They apparently don't have physics and such lame-ass things in the Fast and Furious universe, which is lucky when you're jumping off bridges onto moving cars or flipping tanks with a Mustang. So long as you're not the sort of person who complains that Wile E. Coyote should have suffered serious brain trauma from being hit with that anvil then you'll be fine.
It was certainly amusing watching Vin Diesel standing next to the Rock, trying to still look big and muscly. Na-ah, you're standing next to the Rock, fella. And another thing, tell me again why Vin Diesel is a star? You can't understand what he's saying and his head looks like a potato! And not one of those good-looking potatoes either.
What I didn't like, in particular (because of course I am one of those people who complain that Wile E. Coyote should have suffered serious brain trauma from being hit with that anvil):
1) It's a movie about racing. The opening scene is of two CGI cars racing around a windy cliff-top road! CGI, goddamit! Get some real driving! And then later there was a chase scene in a tunnel, where the footage was sped-up to make it look faster and more dangerous, and even that one included CGI. If I had bought any jaffas I would have thrown them at the screen in disgust, but I'm too cheap.
2) There were two hot girls in the movie. Both of them died. That left Michelle Rodriguez. Seriously?! However I did appreciate that the movie-makers realised that Michelle Rodriguez could in no way (even in the physics-free Fast and Furious universe) win in a fight to the death with Gina Carano, so they had her cheat in order to kill her. But, contrasting that, the reveal of Gina Carano being a mole was completely pointless! And in retrospect it called into question why the fight with Michelle Rodriguez had even taken place earlier in the subway -- they were both on the same side at that point!
What I did like:
1) Gina Carano
2) Gal Gadot
3) cameo by Jason Statham. There were just four other people in the movie theatre. Two of them I think were homeless people trying to keep warm. But anyway, when Statham appeared one of them went "Yee-aah!", and yes that sounded as retarded in real life as it looks written down.
If I was to rate this movie I would give it a.....2. Out of 10. It was actually kind of boring come to think of it. I did like the runway action scene at the end, and (honestly) I didn't even notice how long it would have needed to be.
Oh, also, big SPOILER! Vin Diesel's character is a T-1000!? What the heck!
- Status