better than 4/5 fast furious being rotten
man of steel 56% rotten
Fast & Furious 6 71% fresh
fast 5 78% fresh
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fast_five/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fast_and_furious_6/
the critics have spoken
Fast & Furious 6 71% fresh
fast 5 78% fresh
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fast_five/
http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/fast_and_furious_6/
the critics have spoken
Yeah, well.
Critics are assholes.
Critics are assholes.
No-one cares what critics think.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
they're a barometer whether or not they affect your personal decisions.
the fast and the furious is literally the worst movie i've ever seen
it's also the only movie i gave a rating of 0/10
it's also the only movie i gave a rating of 0/10
try fast5.
i honestly cannot believe they made 5 sequels. it's just not right
World War Z.
My main question: Why bother acquiring the licence to use the source material, market it as coming from the source material, bother putting "based on the source material" in the opening credits, and then not use one bit of the source material?
It's hard to criticise the film on the point that "it wasn't like the book" because it so obviously wasn't trying to be - in fact I've never seen an example of a film that cared so little to try and reflect anything of its source material. But I think that question still has to be asked. When the book had so many good set pieces that could have been used and a number of really good and interesting ideas about the zombies genre, why were absolutely zero of them used? Instead the film is a fairly pedestrian blockbuster with very little in the way of memorable set-pieces or ideas. I'd give it the oxymoronic label of "family-friendly zombie action" if it could be said to be anything.
The film had a troubled production and it shows. It doesn't fit into a genre, it doesn't have much of a beginning middle and end and there is absolutely nothing in the way of character development. It is not a horror, in fact the "horror" of the zombies comes across far more as slapstick if the laughing of the audience was anything to go by. There's not much in the way of suspense or tension either with some of the most unintentionally funny bits when the heroes are sneaking around while the zombies are docile - which in the film means they twitch around and bang their heads on walls, screech, and chatter their teeth as if they like the sound it makes. I'm not sure what the intended effect was but it came across as silly and funny. But regardless, no-one ever seemed to be in any danger. Even when Brad Pitt's family were moved from a safe-point because they were non-essential personnel they were clearly perfectly safe. He made a big show of fretting about it too but they were actually sent to a place that seemed far better than the one they were and seemed to be completely away from any threat.
There weren't really any characters apart from Brad Pitt and Brad Pitt's baggage. First it's his family, then it's a team of army guys and a doctor, then it's an Israeli soldier, then it's another group of doctors - who don't even get named, (they're the focus of about a quarter of the film and all four are credited as "WHO Doctor".) It makes it hard to really give a fuck what happens to anyone and given Brad Pitt's basically a spec-ops super doctor UN reporter guy with an adamantium skeleton he doesn't exactly come across as vulnerable either.
The film obviously worked hard to retain the coveted PG13-R15 rating. As I said the zombies look identical to regular people. Close up their skin is a little off colour, their eyes are milky, and they bare their teeth. But anything further away than close up you can't tell is a running figure is a zombie or not. All zombie kills happen conveniently just off the bottom or side of the screen. Brad Pitt got flecked with a little zombie blood but it was blue, mostly likely re-touched in editing. A soldier got her hand cut off and it cauterises faster than a lightsaber wound. Grenades were thrown but apparently they make zombies vaporise. Zombies are only interested in tackling and giving a quick hicky before moving on. I don't like to argue the blood and gore point too much because it makes me sound bloodthirsty and a little off-balanced but really this is a zombie film. The fact that there's nothing even a little bit icky seems so completely out of place.
Final point, on product placement: Everyone knows it's going to be in movies but just try to be a little less blatant. The saying is not "like a fat kid loves Twix™," it's "like a fat kid loves cake." And if you're going to have Brad Pitt in a film, try to resist the urge to include a scene where he poses next to a Pepsi machine, heroically chugs a can, and empties the machine, (full of Pepsi and only Pepsi because fuck variety,) onto the floor to lure the zombies towards him.
Really really poor. Not terrible or insulting but just bereft of anything positive, memorable, or even engaging. Which is a shame considering the book, while paperback rubbish, was a stand-out from the usual zombie fare and could have been translated really well into a film.
My main question: Why bother acquiring the licence to use the source material, market it as coming from the source material, bother putting "based on the source material" in the opening credits, and then not use one bit of the source material?
It's hard to criticise the film on the point that "it wasn't like the book" because it so obviously wasn't trying to be - in fact I've never seen an example of a film that cared so little to try and reflect anything of its source material. But I think that question still has to be asked. When the book had so many good set pieces that could have been used and a number of really good and interesting ideas about the zombies genre, why were absolutely zero of them used? Instead the film is a fairly pedestrian blockbuster with very little in the way of memorable set-pieces or ideas. I'd give it the oxymoronic label of "family-friendly zombie action" if it could be said to be anything.
The film had a troubled production and it shows. It doesn't fit into a genre, it doesn't have much of a beginning middle and end and there is absolutely nothing in the way of character development. It is not a horror, in fact the "horror" of the zombies comes across far more as slapstick if the laughing of the audience was anything to go by. There's not much in the way of suspense or tension either with some of the most unintentionally funny bits when the heroes are sneaking around while the zombies are docile - which in the film means they twitch around and bang their heads on walls, screech, and chatter their teeth as if they like the sound it makes. I'm not sure what the intended effect was but it came across as silly and funny. But regardless, no-one ever seemed to be in any danger. Even when Brad Pitt's family were moved from a safe-point because they were non-essential personnel they were clearly perfectly safe. He made a big show of fretting about it too but they were actually sent to a place that seemed far better than the one they were and seemed to be completely away from any threat.
There weren't really any characters apart from Brad Pitt and Brad Pitt's baggage. First it's his family, then it's a team of army guys and a doctor, then it's an Israeli soldier, then it's another group of doctors - who don't even get named, (they're the focus of about a quarter of the film and all four are credited as "WHO Doctor".) It makes it hard to really give a fuck what happens to anyone and given Brad Pitt's basically a spec-ops super doctor UN reporter guy with an adamantium skeleton he doesn't exactly come across as vulnerable either.
The film obviously worked hard to retain the coveted PG13-R15 rating. As I said the zombies look identical to regular people. Close up their skin is a little off colour, their eyes are milky, and they bare their teeth. But anything further away than close up you can't tell is a running figure is a zombie or not. All zombie kills happen conveniently just off the bottom or side of the screen. Brad Pitt got flecked with a little zombie blood but it was blue, mostly likely re-touched in editing. A soldier got her hand cut off and it cauterises faster than a lightsaber wound. Grenades were thrown but apparently they make zombies vaporise. Zombies are only interested in tackling and giving a quick hicky before moving on. I don't like to argue the blood and gore point too much because it makes me sound bloodthirsty and a little off-balanced but really this is a zombie film. The fact that there's nothing even a little bit icky seems so completely out of place.
Final point, on product placement: Everyone knows it's going to be in movies but just try to be a little less blatant. The saying is not "like a fat kid loves Twix™," it's "like a fat kid loves cake." And if you're going to have Brad Pitt in a film, try to resist the urge to include a scene where he poses next to a Pepsi machine, heroically chugs a can, and empties the machine, (full of Pepsi and only Pepsi because fuck variety,) onto the floor to lure the zombies towards him.
Really really poor. Not terrible or insulting but just bereft of anything positive, memorable, or even engaging. Which is a shame considering the book, while paperback rubbish, was a stand-out from the usual zombie fare and could have been translated really well into a film.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Despicable Me 2 9/10
Would have given it 10 but Despicable Me was slightly better.
Would have given it 10 but Despicable Me was slightly better.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
I thought that was coming out in July.
wat
wat
Spoiler (highlight to read):HITNRUNXX wrote:
I think 3D would be rough... It had a lot of that Transformers-Style action sequences... You know, the type that is moving super fast, and zoomed in really close, so you don't really see it happening as much as see a lot of shaky, blurry movement and hear the sound effects... Not all of it mind you... Just the important fights.unnamednewbie13 wrote:
Also I've had the ending spoiled by friends who assumed I've seen it, so shaky cam is pretty much the final reason for me to not go. At least for 3D.
Really, overall, I think the trick is to watch it like a new character, and be happy when it seems like Superman... Because it just didn't have that Superman feel to it.
So basically watch it like it's the beginnings of the evil Superman universe where he lobotomizes or kills "bad guys" outright. I'll make sure to root for Lex Luthor.
zombie pile!!
Can't wait to see this.Dilbert_X wrote:
Despicable Me 2 9/10
Would have given it 10 but Despicable Me was slightly better.
Alan Moore is such a recluse, this is the only time Ive seen him speak for an extended period of time. A really cool movie, especially if you like his comic books/graphic novels/nerdgasms
Last edited by Spearhead (2013-06-23 22:33:57)
one of those good old fashioned english eccentrics. not many countries entertain 'em like we do.
Pretentious bugger though.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
you just wrote 1,500 words about war z
Which makes my opinion invalid because...?
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
i am not a fan of alan moore but he doesn't seem pretentious to me. he seems like an earnest eccentric who is just into his weird marginalia and esoterica. he doesn't seem conceited or ostentatious about it. he lives in a council house in a very poor area of the UK and completely effaces all fame. i wouldn't say he's pretentious. writing 1,500 words of in-depth analysis about the nadir of brad pitt's contractually-profitable career seems to me to be, however, a little self-indulgent and conceited.
Not defending it/haven't seen it... But heard today that it was actually supposed to be a prequel, and they are planning another movie that follows the book, which actually took place after everything broke out....Ty wrote:
World War Z.
I don't know either way, just sharing the rumor.
It was closer to 700 words actually and that's just how I write on this thread. Some people write number ratings, I write paragraphs. I thought you of all people could appreciate that. Also World War Z is a huge disappointment and deserves to be ranted at a bit.Uzique The Lesser wrote:
i am not a fan of alan moore but he doesn't seem pretentious to me. he seems like an earnest eccentric who is just into his weird marginalia and esoterica. he doesn't seem conceited or ostentatious about it. he lives in a council house in a very poor area of the UK and completely effaces all fame. i wouldn't say he's pretentious. writing 1,500 words of in-depth analysis about the nadir of brad pitt's contractually-profitable career seems to me to be, however, a little self-indulgent and conceited.
Moore's a genuine guy but his attitude towards film adaptations in general and particularly adaptations of his own work does come across as pretentious. My opinion, feel free to disagree.
It did end with one of those cliché "It's not over..." monologues. To be honest I hope they scrap it and start again like Ang Lee's Hulk. The film's core problem is so much more than just not following the book. I think it's mostly down to the desire to make a PG13 zombie horror film. It's just not going to work. Plus I'm pretty sure no-one who worked on the film understood why people like zombies. If you're making a zombie film and you get the zombies wrong you should probably give up.HITNRUNXX wrote:
Not defending it/haven't seen it... But heard today that it was actually supposed to be a prequel, and they are planning another movie that follows the book, which actually took place after everything broke out....Ty wrote:
World War Z.
I don't know either way, just sharing the rumor.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
I find his attitude toward Hollywood pretty refreshing. How many authors are out there who passed up the opportunity to make millions off of adaptations? Like he says in that movie I posted, his actions are completely pure and "without lust or result" Hes not giving the finger to Hollywood because he feels better than you, its b/c he recognizes it for what it is. Whenever it takes a piece of literature and adapts it into a film it usually targets the lowest common denominator. He explicitly says that his comics were designed to tell a story that was only possible through comic books. Hes a principled recluse, and his "graphic novels" are the only comics Ive ever bought. I wonder how many of protestors you see with Guy Fawkes masks have bothered to read the book? All the profits from them goes straight to WB.Ty wrote:
Moore's a genuine guy but his attitude towards film adaptations in general and particularly adaptations of his own work does come across as pretentious. My opinion, feel free to disagree.
Didn't Brad Pitt acquire the rights to World War Z because some other actor wanted it aswell as his first production? I thank that was why it was such a rush job and why the production is such a mess.
I still want to see it though and it might not look so bad to me considering that I seem to be the only person on earth that's never even heard of the source. A PG13 zombie movie doesn't forbode anything good though.
I still want to see it though and it might not look so bad to me considering that I seem to be the only person on earth that's never even heard of the source. A PG13 zombie movie doesn't forbode anything good though.