MovieChat Forums > Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever (2002) Discussion > 3.5 out of 10 is a joke!

3.5 out of 10 is a joke!

posted 18 years ago by cold_killa
46 replies | jump to latest

How the hell can any sane person give this movie over 1 out of 10???!!!

This is without a doubt one of the worst movies I have ever seen, It's complete and utter waste of film, evergy and above all else, time.

Someone else rented it and I got to see for free and I still felt ripped off. The script sounded like it was written by a twelve year old. The plot... LOL that word doesn't apply to this trash. Action/fight scenes were lame matrix wannabe rip-offs. Acting was worse than Hayden Christensen. I'm still upset I wasted 2 hours on it, every 5 min, when I was going to turn it off, I foolishly thought it was going to get better. Big mistake. I hope the director learns from this colosul mistake he made with this movie and improves his work, that is if they decide to hire him again.

[–] 18 years ago

[deleted]

[–] eyal2003 18 years ago

I agree with you.
This is not a 9-10 stars movie, but it defently deserve 8.
But 3.5 ?!?! OMG. I was in shock when I saw this rating..

[–] shmn 17 years ago

try reading comments before making a fool by yourself, by showing us you only read the bloody title, moronic idiotic stupid retard

[–] bf_infiltrator 17 years ago

haha lol

[–] kharaa 17 years ago

it wasn't THAT bad. it was obviously made on a for tv budget.

the fight scenes didn't remind me of the matrix at all, hense the lack of bullettime, ect ect.

it definately isn't the greatest movie out there, but i give it a 7

[–] ztarz2000 17 years ago

This movie was made with a budget of $70 million
The Matrix was made with a budget of $63 million
The 3rd LOTR movie which has a worldwide box office of $1129 million was made with a budget of only $94 million

Yes, it is that bad

[–] KingAtor42 17 years ago

The Entire LOTR TRILOGY made 1.129 billion, not the third movie alone. Ther trilogy costs over 270M to produce.

Aristophanes once wrote, roughly translated...

[–] Challeman 17 years ago

Actually if you count them together its $2.912 billion for 270 million.

http://imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross?region=world-wide

[–] Monk-ish 17 years ago

No...it made over 1 billion

Return of the King:
Domestic: $377,027,325 33.7%
+ Foreign: $741,861,654 66.3%
= Worldwide: $1,118,888,979

source: boxofficemojo.com

[–] x4nt1 17 years ago

Bwahhaha 244 people gave this crap 10 out of 10
I hope it's a joke...

[–] jtjcp88 17 years ago

I assume thats 244 Texans.

" I'm not working for the Clampdown "

[–] edwchase 17 years ago

"I assume thats 244 Texans."

As a Texan I will say that this movie stunk. It was one of the worse piece of doo-doo I have seen in a long time. Some movies are so bad they are fun. This movie does not even qualify for that. It is just that bad.

I inherited this movie with a bunch of others from some friends who moved over seas. I had never heard of it but, I thought with a cast like Antonio Banderas and Lucy Liu (I kind of have a thing for Lucy) it should be at least watchable; boy was I wrong! Both of those guys are better than this.

This movie get rated a big "BLEAACH!"

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] theB9er 17 years ago

Texans that's the best thing you could come up with .All I can say to that is Fock you sir

[–] Biennor 17 years ago

I agree, everything about this movie is bad. It is in fact the reason why I created an account on imdb, just so I could submit my vote for 1 star.

[–] cold_killa 17 years ago

Right on buddy!

[–] Thrice2006 17 years ago

"The 3rd LOTR movie which has a worldwide box office of $1129 million was made with a budget of only $94 million "

1129 million eh?

....

...

uhh?

*edit* for all the guys who cant figure out 1129 million is actually 1.129 billion, no one that has gone to school would say "thousand million"

[–] bogwart-1 17 years ago

There's nothing at all wrong with saying $1129 million, Mr Bighead who went to school. In fact if you'd gone to anything but an American school you would recognise what you call a billion as a milliard. 'Billion' is in common use now in the English-speaking world, but then so is 'awesome'. Neither one is often used correctly.

[–] experiments 17 years ago

True. I remember when the Economist made a point of saying that they were changing number conventions, from the traditional "long-scale" thousand millions, etc., and adopting the American "short-scale" convention of billion. Who knows if the English-speaking (generally) will switch back now that we actually have occasion to talk about "trillions" (or billions to you long-scale adherents, unless I've completely confused myself).

[–] utahman1971 9 years ago

bogwart-1 There's nothing at all wrong with saying $1129 million, Mr Bighead who went to school.

That is what Thrice2006 said. Talk about not reading posts. You trash him after you saying the exact same thing as him. He said that there was nothing wrong with 1129 million which is the same as the billion quote. It bugs me when people say that people don't read posts, and looks stupid, but this one beats the not reading post, because he actually read it.

I am a gore watching freak!!!

If it don't have it, it isn't worth the watch.

[–] quangjle 9 years ago

Do you read posts?

"*edit* for all the guys who cant figure out 1129 million is actually 1.129 billion, no one that has gone to school would say "thousand million"

Thrice is clearly being a condescending a$$, and saying that you cannot say $1129 million (one thousand...million). You are dumb. Yes Utahman.

[–] michiruwater 17 years ago

I could see some one using it like that just for comparitive purposes, because it's easier to see the different between 70 million and 1129 million than 70 million and 1.129 billion.

"There is some one I must protect." - Riza Hawkeye, FMA

[–] vqld 17 years ago

Word up.

[–] darklordsmurf 17 years ago

I just gave it 10 out of 10.. I liked it because of the action..

I don't give a wooden nickle about the acting - I see films for action-purpose. Maybe that's why I liked xXx so much?

[–] 17 years ago

[deleted]

[–] manucansg 17 years ago

For non-stop 10-10 action, try XXX... or Debbie Does Dallas...

[–] bamboopandacat 17 years ago

"This movie was made with a budget of $70 million
The Matrix was made with a budget of $63 million
The 3rd LOTR movie which has a worldwide box office of $1129 million was made with a budget of only $94 million"

I never thought I would wake up one day to know people spent THAT MUCH MONEY on lord of the rings.

I can't believe that *beep* made over a billion dollars.

Makes me want to watch this film even after everything i've heard

And now I have a reason to go to church, to pray they never make another LOTR film ever, no prequell or sill condom marillian or whatever it's called or ANYTHING.

But tell me one thing, this movie was no where near as poorly, lack lusterly made as those crappy charlies angles films was it?

Like Charlies Angles had 2, maybe 3 action scenes per movie totally ruining the movies because well, the acting sucked so, oh so hard.

This one at least has action scene after action scene like that movie Ong Bak or The Protector with Tony Jaa right?

[–] jmtrc 12 years ago

Maybe that gas you pump all day is going to your head.

http://mo3del.ru/files/pic_models/spoilers.jpg

[–] utahman1971 9 years ago

Actually xXx was better than this.

I am a gore watching freak!!!

If it don't have it, it isn't worth the watch.

[–] aef-6 17 years ago

I think isnt so bad, i givet a 6. But in imdb must have 4.6

Last Seen:
The Gold Rush (1925) - 5/10
Ed Wood (1994) - 5/10
Amores perros (2000) - 8/10

[–] Brouder1 17 years ago

Whoever made this thread is a *beep* idiot.

[–] cold_killa 16 years ago

Great job Brouder1, please continue displaying your breathtaking inteligence by defending a horrible film!