Page 697 of 1111

Re: movies

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 2:12 pm
by ollie123w
ok after some debating, i am going to watch the 2nd movie, i also have conan the barbarian, death proof and planet terror to watch. lazy sunday sorted

Re: movies

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 6:12 pm
by someone else
Rcently watched:

Ides Of March - solid stuff, well acted, but not particularly cinematic and has the feel of a TV drama. 7/10
Apollo 18 - Alright, set up well, but didn't really build up to anything 6/10
Super - Blacker then Kick Ass, fairly decent 6/10
Rolling Thunder - Revenge B-flick from the 70s, apparently one of Tarantino's favourite films. Ok as far as it goes, but not quite the 'lost classic' its made out to be. 7/10
The Veteran - Low budget attempt to update Taxi Driver, with an Afghanistan vet returning home and being drawn into a web involving shifty spooks and drug dealer. Grim beginning descends into silly OTT ending 7/10

Re: movies

Posted: Sun Mar 18, 2012 8:08 pm
by Luke_X
a new viral video for Prometheus showing 'some' info on Weyland Industries and a small look at what sort of character Michael Fassbender will be playing.

http://mobile3.influxis.com/pm/viewer/v ... MfIx/UAzI=

Re: movies

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:02 pm
by MetalBeast
ollie123w wrote:Battle Royale! This film needs to be appreciated more, it's awesome


Just bought that. I've been meaning to get it for a while, but now I've got the excuse of wanting to compare it to The Hunger Games.

Re: movies

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 1:20 pm
by angel_of_death
Saw 'We Bought a Zoo' on saturday. I thought it was great. Yes it had all the standard plot points, and it was predictable, but it was a nice warm fuzzy film.

Re: movies

Posted: Mon Mar 19, 2012 2:00 pm
by AnnihiSlateR
Watched Less than Zero before. I quite liked it, and I finally found an explanation to the Slayer cover that I've had on my PC as long as I can remember having the album name Less than Zero. I still feel Andrew McCarthy can only play himself though. Pretty much every film I've seen him in he practically has the same character, and he always looks nervous to me too. Though I might be mis remembering it, but I'm pretty sure in Rob Lowes book he says that McCarthy getting his first role in class was an accident, and he hadn't even intended to audition, he was just there with a friend who was auditioning. So perhaps he never saw himself as an actor which is why he seems nervous to me. Who knows. Though apparently he's Rob Lowe's only friend to refer to him as Bob.

Re: movies

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 9:44 am
by Darkweasel
SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE

Image

It's 1982 and an escaped maniac is on the loose. Ah yes, early '80s USA, that was the place to be. A place where psycho killers don't require back stories, and can lock up entire high school buildings faster than the time it takes a normal person to close a single door.
A place where power drills buzz menacingly as the drill bit stays magically stationary. A place to attack killers with rubber fire pokers. A place where girls run screaming to doors which have been very clearly chained up but still try and open them anyway. A place where you can have your guts slashed open and your hand cut off, and fill a swimming pool with ten gallons of blood in two seconds flat, but still have enough strength to get back out of the pool completely bone dry.
It was a time of red herrings, prolonged and gratuitous soapy shower room nudity, obvious pranks, and innocent peeping tommery. A time where power tools were so overtly phallic there was no room for hidden subtext, and where absolutely nobody listens to repeated TV and radio warnings about escaped psychopaths.

Slumber Party Massacre surely has to be the worst '80s slasher film by quite some distance, yet almost paradoxically, it's general awfulness makes it one of the most watchable. It steals camera shots from Halloween, and music from Piranha. It happily reveals who the (completely unscary and rubbish) killer is in the first five minutes, and handles any possible build-up of tension with all the talent of a chimpanzee holding a handycam.
It's so far beyond awful it's laughable, but for some reason I liked it.
7/10

Re: movies

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 1:37 pm
by angel_of_death
So John Carter is predicted to become the biggest flop in cinema history...with Disney expecting to lose $200 million...can't say I'm surprised. Looking forward to seeing what all the fuss/anti-fuss is about on the weekend, will prob see Hunger Games straight after to give myself some hope to cling on to as I've got myself quite excited by it!

Re: movies

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:13 pm
by Applecore
Darkweasel wrote:SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE

Image

Have you seen Slumber Party Massacre 2, where the killer has a drill guitar? :lol:

Re: movies

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 4:52 pm
by Soze
John Carter has got very mixed reviews from the media but Joe Public seem more impressed. 7.1 on IMDB from over 18,000 users, that's a pretty good score. It's flopped because of the amount of money it made to make. To put it in context, it took $30million in it's opening weekend in the US and is considered a flop. Multi Oscar winning The Artist has only grossed $40million in the US after being out for 4 months.

General opinion is that it 'flopped' because of bad marketing by Disney. It'll probably go on to do well in the rental market but not anywhere near enough to get a sequel green lit.

Re: movies

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:21 pm
by Aaaarrrrgggghhhh
angel_of_death wrote:So John Carter is predicted to become the biggest flop in cinema history...with Disney expecting to lose $200 million...can't say I'm surprised. Looking forward to seeing what all the fuss/anti-fuss is about on the weekend, will prob see Hunger Games straight after to give myself some hope to cling on to as I've got myself quite excited by it!



I think Battleship will lose more this year, but it'll be a close call between these two.

Re: movies

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 5:28 pm
by Luke_X
Soze wrote:John Carter has got very mixed reviews from the media but Joe Public seem more impressed. 7.1 on IMDB from over 18,000 users, that's a pretty good score. It's flopped because of the amount of money it made to make. To put it in context, it took $30million in it's opening weekend in the US and is considered a flop. Multi Oscar winning The Artist has only grossed $40million in the US after being out for 4 months.

General opinion is that it 'flopped' because of bad marketing by Disney. It'll probably go on to do well in the rental market but not anywhere near enough to get a sequel green lit.


It happens more than people think. Avatar was lucky in that respect as it cost $500million and they made that up reasonably quickly especially with dvd sales.

Re: movies

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:17 pm
by Darkweasel
Applecore wrote:
Darkweasel wrote:SLUMBER PARTY MASSACRE

Image

Have you seen Slumber Party Massacre 2, where the killer has a drill guitar? :lol:

No, but I plan to. :lol:

Re: movies

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 6:57 pm
by MetalBeast
Saw 21 Jump Street and John Carter last night.

21 Jump Street was very enjoyable. A solid comedy effort. Might buy the DVD.

John Carter was OK. It was packed with clichés, but reasonably enjoyable. Nowhere near worth the quarter-billion they spent on it though. If they were hoping for a big franchise-starter, they failed miserably.

Re: movies

Posted: Tue Mar 20, 2012 7:22 pm
by Luke_X
according to the good old news on ITV, Disney have said they will lose at least $200million (as already said on here). i can see that they will be really pushing The Avengers in the coming months now to make up for their losses.