RT is reporting that 43% of moviegoers actually liked the film and a guy on another forum I post on gave it a 7.5/10, so it's obviously appealing to SOMEONE.
This board is full of people being like, "Oh, bad reviews!"--seriously, can they not see that someone else has already made a thread on the same subject?--but has anyone actually watched the movie?
I went yesterday and it was not good at all. I wish they had said that it was a remake instead of leading people to believe it was a sequel.
shareIt never even occurred to me that it might be a sequel. My understanding from the beginning is that it's a remake.
shareSony market it as a sequel right after they said Kiefer Sutherland was in it. What they never mention was that he was playing a completely different character, wich is why people kept calling it a sequel and not a remake.
shareI remember this being mentioned too, when Kiefer was announced I remember something being mentioned about it being a sequel, but I am not sure if that was just an assumption by the writer of the article.
shareit was embargoed from the reviewers which is never a good sign - my son has gone to see it tonight I await his opinion
share[deleted]
I didn't feel any connection with the characters like I did the original. I am not sure if it's my perception now vs then or it was just a bad movie.
shareI didn't even know this existed until I saw a video on YouTube about it. Or maybe I just forgot about it because it's a mediocre remake of a movie that wasn't that great in the first place.
share