MovieChat Forums > spurtle467 > Replies
spurtle467's Replies
Another thing I don't get is how naive some of these people who live among these mobsters are to being told certain people have been flipped and gone in the WPP. Even Junior Soprano who was playing Richie Aprile against Tony, later in the show calls him a "rat fuck". Surely in all his wisdom he knows that what is more likely is that Tony got rid of him after telling Tony about Richie moving against him, as that is the most logical explanation for his disappearance.
It's either poor writing and they've made him look dumb, or he's just saying that knowing full well it isn't true. Then again they make others like Jackie Jr and Meadow dumb for believing anything they're told about where people connected to the mob life have gone.
I can. A sequel to an averageish movie, made 20 years later by the same average director, who is well past his best by now, and without the likability that Will Smith brought to the screen. Destined to be rubbish.
At least it's better than the travesty of a sequel.
I liked this movie at the time but yes, in retrospect all these years later, it's a cliched and dated cheese fest. The cast isn't so much the problem as who the director is.
Science fiction horror? What do you mean by that because you'd be ruling out a lot of good horrors like Alien and The Thing.
Agree. PJ went all George Lucas. Developed an unhealthy obsession with CGI which you could tell from his films in between the LOTR and these Hobbit movies, as well as over the top action set pieces that just sort of take the piss in terms of defying logic. When you look back at his earlier movies it's kind of sad because they were rich with practical effects.
I would have preferred seeing another director's take on The Hobbit trilogy (or not) in retrospect.
No I don't agree and the critical consensus seems to be of the same opinion. The original has a 6% rating on Rotten Tomatoes and the sequel has an 82% rating. I'm not sure I'd rate the sequel that high myself but that is a huge difference between a film and its sequel, maybe even the highest on that site? For me it's one of the rare occasions when you can say, hand on heart without any doubt, a sequel trumps its predecessor.
I agree that the ending got a wee bit silly. It's still better than the ending of the first movie, which was incredible lame the way her friend turned up out of the blue to help her out, when it makes it seem like she could have done that at any other point of the movie.
It might depend on how old they are in the 80's. Someone younger from the 80's would be less critical than someone older. For example, I was 15 when Independence Day came out and saw it at the cinema. I was blown away by the special effects and liked it very much. If I had seen it an older age for the first time, I might still have been blown away by the special effects but I'd have been more attune to the movie's faults, like all the cliches and the stereotyping, and general silly moments. So probably a similar thing here. Though on a positive note I do believe anybody from the 80's would be impressed on an initial viewing, by the visuals in a modern day blockbuster like this.
Just an unnecessary character with bad dialogue and voice that took me out of the film whenever she spoke. I guess they needed to hit their quota of female characters by putting her in here, in order to appease the SJWs.
Knowing the BBC the next Doctor will be a wheelchair bound black lesbian. Would make for an even match with Davros I suppose.
It's funny, I made a post after the second episode making the same point. So now following on there's been an episode about racism in the Deep South around the time of Rosa Parks? Ha, could the writers make it more obvious what they're going for with this show? Is there going to be an episode where they go back to the time of the Suffragettes? Perhaps it could portray all men being a-holes to women during it.
Seems to be an hour of race and gender politics masquerading as a sci-fi show. It's like now they've made the Doctor a woman, it's opened the floodgates in terms of the egalitarian angle the writing can go in. Or am I wrong and it's been this way for a while?
I thought she was ok but felt there should have been more emotion shown when she saw her dead friend lying under the sheet. She should have acted more horrified. Admittedly, this may have been how the director wanted her to react.
Wait, so she really is a lesbian character? LOL. I didn't actually know and didn't watch the episode in full so must have missed the part when they clarified that she was. If I'm to be accused of stereotyping for making that judgement based on the length of her hair then maybe the BBC should too. Why not give her long hair? Long haired lesbians exist too don't they?
Anyway, it reiterates my point about how they seem to be really pushing out the stops for fair representation of genders, race, sexual orientation etc. I've got nothing against diversity but I'd have a problem if as a writer my writing had to adhere to box ticking, and there needed to be a certain number of characters fitted into a story because you can't leave out certain groups. I couldn't help thinking that that's what was going on behind this episode.
The acting for it in this film may be a worse example for it than others but I think it can be a reflection of its datedness as well the standard in acting. I mean is it just me or are deaths in earlier films, from black and white films up to films in the 70's, less convincing than deaths in films in the present time, on the whole? Characters dying in them often looks more staged. Even watching something like The Godfather, some of the deaths look comical to me in their presentation, but I doubt they were going for comedy, rather just trying to add a more dramatic approach to them, like in this. And at the time with those audiences as unused to death and murder in film as we are, you could probably get away with it, and evoke more shock than laughter.
I didn't see a problem with Naomi Watts in this. She was more convincing than Brie Larson and her funny facial expressions in the newer one.
As the other poster said, there were far bigger problems with this movie.
I doubt they were supposed to be comical. Just a result of some bad acting on PJ Soles part. Let's be honest, she wasn't the most convincing in this.
He was trying to help out. If you listen to him when he gets out of the car with his own flare, he says to Grant to get the kids. He wants to lure the T-Rex even further away, I guess to allow Grant more time to do that. He probably didn't bank on the T-Rex carrying on after him once he threw it away. It was brave, stupid, and lucky (that he survived) all in one, but it made for a great moment.
She looked perfectly fine in Rogue One. Youthful in fact.
I don't think it lends itself that well to a sequel. The alien invasion was used as a vehicle in the movie to help a preacher rediscover his faith by saving his family from them. That was the main point of it. It was never about saving humankind from the bad aliens, like in your typical action sci-fi. It should remain a standalone film.
However, it was a nice and effective idea to me having a slow build-up to an alien invasion from the point of view of an out of town farmer and his family, along with the crop circles (something surprisingly unexplored on film). I wouldn't mind seeing something similar again.
I hadn't even seen all of the MCU movies prior to this. I hadn't seen a single Thor movie, or Black Panther, or Spider-Man: Homecoming, or the second GOTG movie. Likewise for the first Avengers movie I had only seen Iron Man prior to it. Naturally there were some characters I wasn't familiar with but I still really liked it, and knew that they didn't need to nor should they, write the characters especially for people who weren't familiar with them.
They juggled all the characters extremely well and tonally I think they got it spot on. About average in terms of the comedy for the MCU, while serious enough to get a feel of the threat from Thanos and what's at stake. I've seen Thor: Ragnarok now, and that was an extreme example of the comedic tone for these movies. They probably overdid it there but I quite enjoyed that one too, again not having seen the first 2 Thor films still.
Thanks for agreeing, and replying. Sometimes it's hard to know which month you'll get a reply on this site.
Whatever directorial and writing ability Salva had for this franchise, it appears it's deserted him. I mean forget the low budget acting and special effects, the story and writing is just bad. Any sequel should have been done nearer the time, as many directors get worse over time, and by all means I don't want it to seem like the original movies were brilliant. They were passable entertainment, but this was complete rubbish.