MovieChat Forums > Quioby1 > Replies
Quioby1's Replies
Did they complain about the creepy clowns randomly stalking people? Those guys probably did more to promote the creepy dangerous clown idea.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Il_KGsw2miI
I wouldn't say it's the worst movie I've ever seen. Just trying watching "Killer Condom." That being said, I was surprised at how good Lucas' accent was at the beginning. The film had a few decent scenes but it fell apart by the end. Some of the characters were acted well enough but we didn't have enough time to actually care about what happened.
Did you find that Dolph Lundgren looked like an aged superman with slicked back black hair?
That's your opinion... which means nothing in the end. Go ahead and enjoy calling things "shit" on the internet. Bye.
"How does it look nostalgic??"
The trailer uses similar musical tones to get the audience interested. The costumes are made to make completely different characters look similar to characters in the original (Officer K's Jacket). The film makes sure to focus on the fact that Officer K's gun is the same as Deckard's. That's how it looks nostalgic. It's cashing in on familiarity.
"It looks the same as any digital effects orgy shit film of today."
Sorry, but digital films are going to stay. Practical effects were great, but they couldn't do what digital does. Some movies use digital in a smart way. Just look at the way digital was used in Mad Max Fury Road.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bL6hp8BKB24
I remember the same thinking was said about "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull." The original production team was there so my friends assumed it was going to be amazing. It wasn't amazing so much as it seemed like a cash grab. I hope it does well. This year's has been pretty lame for movies.
Not at the moment, but If you get a chance, check out some work by Richard Matheson. He was one of Stephan King's favorite writers. He's known for "I am Legend," "Terror at 20,000 Feet," and "What Dreams May Come."
I disagree. Charlie was a hardened criminal who has a code of honor. Charlie was mutilated because of the actions of these two. If anything, they got off easy considering that Charlie had fed his neighbors to his neighbor's dogs. The ending validated Charlie's reputation and reason as to why everyone feared Charlie.
Also:
Ira is still the man.
The original is lightning in a bottle. I don't think it could be done again. I'm, too, relieved.
It's a little more scary than your average 90's "goosebumps" but not as scary as your average 90's "Are you Afraid of the Dark." It's on par for quality.
So... a movie wants to allocate resources to make a film's budget provide a better product for you and you're angry? Sorry, but that's lame. The money they save on Taxes can be spent on costumes, CGI, talent, Writers, equipment, personnel, lighting, etc... In that case, you may as well boycott Samuel L. Jackson for making most of his movies in Winnipeg because he wants to keep as much of the money as he earns. You may as well also throw away your computer, cell phone, and all other electronics because they were made by cheaper labor to counter the cost increase had the products been made in the US. Sorry, but paying more in taxes only reduces the economic incentive to provide better services. By avoiding taxes, they are increasing the output of their budget to provide a better product.