MovieChat Forums > OuterSpace > Replies
OuterSpace's Replies
I think they did but since this is a movie unwilling to depict any kind of physical love to where it wont even show kissing at obviously appropriate moments, they were only willing to ambiguously imply it.
<blockquote>I'm sure it would be technically impressive but I'm surprised he's willing to just remake a movie that's already been remade. </blockquote>
Well at the end of the day Nosferatu is just Dracula with a very unique/famous design for the Count, so it's really just another in a loooong line of adaptations of Stoker's novel.
Probably wont be since Eggers usually only gives lip service to that corporate junk while not including it in his movies.
If it ends up that way it will probably be some statement on patriarchal domination over the female sex or some tired cliche like that but this is supposed to be a passion project for him, so I don't think he'll waste the opportunity on something so basic and trite.
<blockquote>Looks like a mix of his last 3 movies. I don't get why everyone is so excited about this. Nothing about the trailer was that impressive and the overuse of loud string music was obnoxious </blockquote>
Every trailer sucks since they all follow the same lazy formula and staples, like the aforementioned sound cues and cheap jumps. It's rare when they try something different with a trailer so you always have to keep that in mind when viewing them.
But people are interested because Eggers is very strong with tone and visuals and there's belief he can do an interesting take on the beyond done-to-death Dracula story.
The more control of a project he gets the worse he is. He's a visual guy wheras his storytelling ability is not great. When working with other people's scripts/material he can make some decent stuff but when he has too much creative control he makes total crap.
<blockquote>Why?</blockquote>
"The search for more money."
<blockquote>I remember Red Letter Media recorded a commentary for Alien and they kept complaining the movie was boring.</blockquote>
No they did not. The only thing they trashed was computer room due to it looking like a bunch of Christmas lights but otherwise they were very favorable to the movie. In fact Rich was the only one that preferred Aliens over the original.
For me the big problem with Covenant was it seemed like it really wanted to be a movie about a questionably functioning android dealing with a God/creation complex but due to the reaction to Prometheus, also had to include a bunch of traditional Alien elements and really failed to marry them both into a solid story. The fact that it heavily deviates from where (it appeared) Prometheus was leading and doubling down on things happening due to extreme character stupidity didn't help either.
Someone to Watch Over Me was painfully boring after a provocative opening and his recent Napoleon film was largely devoid of merit outside of some performances and a scene or two.
Indiana Jones was much worse. It being a gigantic property(Accounting for inflation they were all the equivalent of billion dollar movies) yet Dial of Destiny with it's absurd $387m budget only pulled in $383m worldwide. Even an un-adjusted Crystal Skull made nearly $800m and that was back in 2008 without all the current price inflation.
Furiosa is a major bomba but not at that level.
When she comes up on the other bike, the one she's riding has a very "rickety" and metal grindy sound to it, so I assume she switched the other due to it being in better condition; just needed a new front wheel which she swapped out from the one she was on.
I'm guessing anyway. =P
It was as you surmised, Sosa was too large and powerful for Frank to take on. Later we saw the level of connections Sosa had, even people within the US government. Frank would have no chance taking on Sosa.
Also the "made man" thing is an Italian mafia concept but we're dealing with the cartel in this movie.
<blockquote> But I don't think Omar deliberately set up Tony to get killed by the Colombians. I believe it was more likely a suicide mission, with little chance of success. Which isn't exactly the same.</blockquote>
One would arguet he did. Notice when Tony starts shouting at him, Omar goes for his gun with the intention of outright shooting Tony then and there. He's stopped by his associate who whispers something to Omar, which suddenly gives him the idea to send Tony to handle the deal with the Colombians. It's clear the idea is to send Tony to a bad deal, where he will meet his end. And if he doesn't well then hey, they got the stuff.
It was theoretically win-win for Omar, though he never imagined Tony would return from said deal and also be very "business savvy" about delivering the drugs and money to Lopez.
<blockquote>China is the reason Terminator Genisys became a hit (2nd biggest Terminator ww unadjusted) and bc of the huge China haul the franchise got another bite at the cherry (Dark Fate, not so lucky in china)</blockquote>
Not exactly. It made good money in China but Hollywood only receives 25% of the revenue made from China and it made poor returns elsewhere, hence them not continuing from Genisys and attempting yet another soft reboot with Dark Fate (Which did considerably worse). If the foreign money was satisfactory they would have continued Genisys. China money ain't saving shit.
It's not amazing or anything but if you're a Mad Max fan it's a pretty good videogame. It's somewhat minimalist on story so in that regard I wouldn't expect anything on the level of the 2009 Ghostbusters game.
<blockquote>Not so sure about Scrotus. Was that character meant to be some Hunter Biden joke? </blockquote>
He was the main villain from the Mad Max videogame that took place between this and Fury Road. I'd imagine he's a very confusing inclusion for anyone not familiar with said game.
It would be a fair comparison if that plot point wasn't largely dropped after (Or rather, within) the first act and just became about Furiosa surviving the world and showing the surrounding events that led to Fury Road.
I'm not even sure why Furiosa tattooed a map on her arm since she didn't need it and it never really factors into the rest of the movie. I guess just for a brief moment where Jack can notice it and give them an excuse to attempt to elope somewhere?
Gordon, of course.
At best it's ok. It's a comedy but I'd argue most of the time it's more irritating than funny, though if you're into over the top "fun" gore then the big ending finale is certainly worthwhile.
<blockquote>4 didn’t suck though as I think it did fairly well in theaters and is still liked by many..? I think it’s a very average Halloween sequel - really didn’t add much to the series .. oh and that mask was god awful
Halloween 5 was dogshit though</blockquote>
4 was something of a flop as despite the return of Michael it barely did better than Halloween 3, which was considered a flop some 6 years earlier. And yes, the mask was indeed horrible.
<blockquote>I also think Burke figured that Ripley would be his ally in bringing back some live aliens. He wrongly assumed that she would be happy to assist him in smuggling back the eggs and "we will be set for life". She had lost her license and he figured that she would be happy to make money off the aliens.</blockquote>
Yeah I think you may be right on this. When Ripley confronts him he basically blames his "mistake" on a situation where he could have lost out on money, as if Ripley would be understanding of that. When she rebukes him he then says he's disappointed in her and thought she'd be smarter than this. So I do think he was slimey enough to believe she'd see it his way where the potential money made off the situation would make it all worthwhile.