MovieChat Forums > ReelReviews14
avatar

ReelReviews14 (290)


Posts


Glad I am NOT watching this season. MST3K revival cancelled! WOOOO!! What happened to Star Wars fans crying about "spoilers"? What a Terminator 7 Hollywood pitch will look like.... David S. Goyer is THE TERMINATOR! BORDERLINE ROTTEN on RT!!! Terminator: Dark Fate title makes it easy to mock Remake NOBODY asked for is bombing. Gosh, I wonder why? At least the Terminator theme music is GREAT in EVERY movie! Worst David S. Goyer franchise killer? Terminator or Superman? View all posts >


Replies


It would have made a ton more if it was a non-DCEU movie that wasn't tied to the hip of Jared Leto's godawful "Joker" I don't see the point of remaking it anyway. The 1990 movie is very good and has aged well. Master of Disguise has a 33% audience score. Audiences thought it sucked just liked the critics did. Dolittle was a good movie. Idiots without taste are more akin to Man of Steel and Terminator: Dark Fate getting "positive" audience scores when they're soulless rehashes of far superior previous entries in their franchise. >> People are saying the CGI here is excellent. What? Did I see the same movie as these people? Holy crap, this might be the worst CGI I have ever seen. << The CGI was decent but certainly not excellent. On the other hand, it is far from being "the worst CGI I have seen". To be fair, its very difficult to make photorealistic CGI animals and the first time they ever pulled it off was Rise of the Planet of the Apes, and stuff like Life of Pi. The movie is aimed at small children and I do not think they will notice or care than the animals are not real. Only adults will be annoyed at stuff like that. >> I wish they’d just use real animals. << It would be impossible for real animals to do most of the stuff the animals do in this movie, the scenarios are obviously fantasy. Though it was annoying that there seemed to be zero real animals used in a movie about animals. I would prefer a blend of maybe 70% CGI and 30% actual on set animals. Would have made the movie flow a lot more smoothly. I took my four year nephew to see it this weekend. It was really fun. A little "zanier" than I expected and definitely aimed at kids, but I don't get the negative reviews. It was much more faithful to the source material than the Eddie Murphy movies and it was very entertaining. Well now that they have "Home" in the two MCU Spider-Man movies, they will probably need to find a way to use the word "Home" in the next one so it works as a trilogy. Something like "Spider-Man: Homegrown Enemy" or "Spider-Man: Homeland" They should have kept it. That's the way the character looks in the comics. I could understand if the reverse happened -- Raimi made him bald but the original comic book version had hair so they were making him more accurate to the source material, but the Raimi version was spot on so they should have kept the same look. Alex Jones has hair, so bald JK Simmons = "MCU version of Alex Jones" makes no sense at all. Also, bringing in a previous actor to reprise his role makes it possible to pretend that Tobey Macguire Spider-Man is taking place in the same universe. Audience score is at 76%. Apparently the people who saw it, liked it, its just the professional critics who think it sucked balls. So its a "worst movie" the same way Venom, Shaft, and Gods and Generals were. Third (ideal Doctor Who, quirky wise older alien genius dude. And the only Doctor who sang his theme song and had his own car!) Ninth (the most badass and serious Doctor, breathed a whole new life into the franchise back in 2005. Wish he had stayed) Tenth (Tennant brought the franchise to its peak. He's not my personal fav but he was the best all around Doctor) Eighth (severely underrated, only got 1 movie and he reinvented The Doctor for the modern era) Seventh (brought the Doctor back as a intriguing and dark character after the ridiculousness of the Colin Baker era. Unfortunately it was too little, too late) Fourth (Tom Baker was too zany and over the top for me, but there is no doubt he had the longest and most successful run and is beloved by tons of Whovians) Second (Complete departure from William Hartnell, his change made the show into the long-running franchise it is today) Eleventh (Was too much of a younger David Tennant clone at first, but he grew on me, and despite being the youngest Doctor ever, he instantly owned the role the instant he appeared on screen) First (cold and mean, takes a while to get used to, but Hartnell's Doc had some serious depth and a number of quirks his character) Fifth (too bland and forgettable for me, but he got the job done) Sixth (Couldn't take him seriously. Worst Doctor of the classic era. Though it might have been the writing ruining his era) Thirteenth (Jodie tries and does a nice David Tennant impersonation, but the gender swap can't breath new life into the franchise and the writing makes much of her tenure unwatchable) Twelfth (hate to rank Capaldi last, as we were overdue an older Doctor and he could have been one of the best. But he inherited the role at absolutely the worst time and could do nothing to salvage that train wreck) That gives me flashbacks to when it was leaked that Jesse Eisenberg would be playing Lex Luthor and most of us rightfully reacted with "WTF?! That is HORRIBLE casting, he's gonna suck so much", but a bunch of fanboys went ballistic that we DARED criticize that decision and started with the "C'mon, give him a chance!!! You're sooooo judgemental!!! You guys all said Heath Ledger would suck toooo and he turned out to be awesome so you're NOT ALLOWED to comment on casting choices ANYMORE!!!" They even photoshopped Jesse Eisenberg to look like a badass bald-headed tough-guy Lex Luthor to "prove" he could play the role. Of course, when the movie actually came out and Eisenberg looked NOTHING like that and sucked in the role JUST like we predicted, they all ran off and hid. View all replies >