Posts by Lisa Ross65

feralorca82 said:Wait, isn't that the edition featuring Gollum? It's not just Two towers, right?

No—it's Two Towers. You’ve got the LOTR set here, though I assume it's not the American translation.

I believe they have it at Amazon—they even carry that edition with the Gollum figurine.

How on earth does The Show Must Go On only have one single screening?

John Thomas25 said:I completely agree. This one is just a decent romantic comedy/drama. Honestly, it’s pretty average for a rom-com, and the dramatic beats aren't even all that great. Plus, Jake Gyllenhaal & Anne Hathaway are perfectly fine—though she is absolutely stunning.

Look, I’ll give it a shot, but only because it has an R rating.

John Thomas25 said:Is it because of him specifically, or just the genre? Maybe you actually watched it and didn't like it?

It's because of Zwick. He's the director behind several terrible movies.

I’ve got a bit of a problem with this Edward Zwick film. It just isn't sitting right with me.

Look, the reality is she just didn't dig Tron: Legacy—but some other kid is going to think it’s the greatest thing ever. Personally, I loved The Fighter. The brat sitting next to me at the AMC Theatres thought it was the most boring movie in history (or so they claimed afterward). The bottom line is this: there's never going to be a way to get your money back just because one person thinks a movie is gold and another thinks it's garbage. If you're going to cry about paying an overpriced ticket at the cinema, why didn't you bother checking if the movie was actually any good first?

Jesse Thomas7 said:Yeah, okay, fair enough, but I’m going to say it for the hundredth time: just because the masses love a movie, or because it has *stellar* reviews, doesn't mean you're going to enjoy it. It’s like how a certain pair of jeans might look killer on everyone EXCEPT you. You can try those jeans on before you buy them to see if they actually work for your frame, rather than just trusting that they look great on someone else. Whether those jeans suit you is a SUBJECTIVE opinion, and liking a movie is exactly the same way.
The real kicker is that trailers and advertisements are specifically engineered to mask every single flaw in a film—they're basically selling you a product that doesn't even exist.
I honestly think it would be amazing—and hey, I'll go ahead and put on my bulletproof vest now because I know people are going to come for me for suggesting this—but it would be great if studios were forced to release the first 15-20 minutes of a movie for FREE instead of pumping out these mindless trailers. That’s more than enough time to figure out if you're being played or not. If you still want to see the rest? Fine, pay the price then.

There is no fixing subjective perception. For instance, I actually had fun watching Wanted with Angelina Jolie, even though based on my own logic and principles, I shouldn't have liked it—it was mindless, cliché, overproduced, and illogical. Still, I enjoyed it; it was a total "guilty pleasure." Most people I talked to thought the movie was trash. Whether you like a film or not is entirely your own business, which is ultimately shaped by your education, what you've read, your film knowledge, and your personal tastes.

Jesse Thomas7 said:Haha, well... here I go again, standing alone against the entire crowd. Honestly, I’m surprised I even made it through that last round without getting shut down. But look, let’s get back to the actual point before everyone starts trolling me—do you guys seriously believe that movies, on a global scale, haven't just become nothing more than mass-produced commodities designed to be shoved down as many people's throats as possible? I mean, sure, there are always those rare exceptions that break the mold, but for the most part, it's just a product being pushed.

Look, there is the actual film industry and then there is the factory line churning out mindless junk. It’s on you to choose. Some people here tell you they have endless pages of reviews to browse through. Personally, I rely heavily on Rotten Tomatoes. These days, dropping $25 or $30 at an AMC Theatres for some absolute garbage is a hard pill to swallow. For years now, I've been selective about what I see in theaters—I steer clear of the trash because I refuse to waste money on a bad ticket. That said, I'll happily pay for Paramount Pictures, Warner Bros., Netflix, or Disney. Occasionally, I'll go into a movie knowing it might not be great, but I go in prepared and I don't complain.

It looks decent enough to me—but I’m staying skeptical. We’re dealing with Francis Lawrence here, and frankly, he completely tanked Constantin and I Am Legend.

Maybe you should consider implementing a cooldown period—say, thirty days—where award winners are barred from entering new sweepstakes. It would give others a fair shot at winning something instead of the same people sweeping the board every time.

Eric Jackson68 said:Hahaha... My God, I have no idea how this topic was even dug up... it feels ancient...

All jokes aside. This would actually serve as a decent baseline for comparing Disney's output as a whole. Let's just say that since 2003, there have been plenty of much worse Disney films—but also many better ones.

Some of the worst:

Chicken Little (the absolute worst movie I have ever watched)
Robinson

Chicken Little is genuinely terrible. Robinson isn't quite as bad, but it's very mediocre, much like Bolt. Call of the Wild is poor, as is Animal Farm. Brother Bear isn't anything special either. However, Princess and the Frog is an excellent film.

Larry Martin4 said:I don't see the issue with the animation. It’s certainly not the best, but it isn't the worst thing ever put to film—even if it is Disney's.

The movie was a failure—both creatively and at the box office. Disney set a pretty high bar for their animation, and their last truly great one was Tarzan.

William Price66 said:I’m honestly a little confused about what we’re actually debating here. I remember getting a copy of Valentine's Day 3D as a gift last year, and it came with those red and blue 3D glasses included in the box. I popped them on and watched the movie on my regular flat-screen, and it definitely had that 3D effect. If that doesn't count as watching something in 3D, then please, someone enlighten me.

That isn't actual 3D. I have the Coraline Blu-ray and it came with cardboard glasses too, but the whole experience is just cheap and looks terrible.

What’s the deal with the 3D in this new Jeopardy! fever? I’m hearing the graphics are terrible and the screen is way too dark. Just another failed rebranding attempt...

Jessica Johnson85 said:The titles are actually pretty solid... 🙂

Is this an outdoor thing? What happens if it rains? 🤷

Not sure—if it rains, I assume they won't be doing any projections.

From August 2nd through the 24th, they're running free movie screenings every single night over in Times Square, Chicago—mostly high-quality stuff, too. Tonight’s feature is
A Serious Man by the Cohens. Check out the full lineup on the summer cinema website.

http://www.ljetnokinogradec.com/

Among the newer directors, M. Night Shyamalan has really hit a slump. From what I’ve been reading in the reviews, he completely tanked with The Last Airbender—it sitting at a measly 8% on RT.

What is going on with this movie? It should have hit theaters ages ago. Probably more post-production headaches—classic Hollywood delays.

The movie is a total bust—critics are tearing it apart. It hits US theaters in early August.