Posts by Keith Jones36

It seems rather redundant to see Rachel McAdams cast once again to play the role of a time traveler's wife.

I happened to watch this film recently... it was passable enough, I suppose, though I found myself feeling rather indifferent by the time it reached the end.
It wasn't until the credits started rolling that I realized who the film director was, at which point I concluded that the entire thing was absolute garbage.
Had I known from the outset that this was his work, I wouldn't have wasted my time watching it at all.

Sean Johnson40 said:I watched the movie since it didn't cost me a dime.
Die Hard is trash, and using it as a benchmark for this flop tells you everything you need to know about how bad this was.
I'm talking real masterpieces here—stuff like JFK (1991) or Where Eagles Dare (1969). That's my level.

Sean Johnson40 said:I watched the movie since it didn't cost me a dime.
Die Hard is trash, and using it as a benchmark for this flop tells you everything you need to know about how bad this was.
I'm talking real masterpieces here—stuff like JFK (1991) or Where Eagles Dare (1969). That's my level.

Good grief... 🙂

Richard Wilson4 said:What are your absolute favorite movies that flopped for no good reason?

John Carter is still pretty fresh in my mind. Honestly, it did great overseas, but the studios here in the States didn't account for that, so they missed the mark financially.

Then you’ve got stuff like Postman or Hudson Hawk.

There are tons of them, obviously. Some people just assume if a movie bombed at the box office, it must be trash. That’s not always true. In fact, a lot of total garbage actually makes a killing at the theater...

Which ones are your favorites?

The marketing for John Carter was fundamentally flawed, specifically regarding its positioning.

The fact that it was a Disney production led people to categorize it as a family-friendly film geared toward younger audiences, which implies limited violence, sex, and profanity. By suppressing those elements, they effectively lowered the expectations and interest of a much larger demographic of viewers.

Who the fuck is John Carter? What younger viewer is going to know that this is based on the 1917 fantasy novel Princess from Mars by the author of Tarzan?
Since there had never been a prior film adaptation, this lack of familiarity with the source material also alienated the younger audience.

Eric Patel7 said:It’s just way easier for Hollywood to dump a massive budget into some flashy blockbuster than to risk $50 million on a decent drama or thriller. They know a big spectacle will almost always recoup its costs—well, most of the time. I say most, because blockbusters like John Carter don't always hit the mark, even if I thought the movie was actually pretty solid. A bit of a slog, maybe, but solid.

I think Brad Pitt or someone along those lines mentioned something similar in an interview once. Over the last decade or so, Hollywood has basically been playing it safe, and I guess it works for them.

This isn't just an isolated phenomenon in Hollywood. I believe this article explains quite clearly why so much garbage is being produced lately.

Bryan Taylor9 said:Ugh—this gives me major zombie Beverly Hills vibes. Seriously.
It’s basically been done to death: we’ve had the teen romance with vampires, werewolves, lycans, and witches, so it’s only logical that zombies would be next in line. 🤷

The movie isn't terrible, but it doesn't hit the mark either. If they had just leaned into a dark comedy angle or even a standard comedy, it might have worked. As it stands, it just feels super lukewarm and boring. 🙄

5/10

The problem is that zombies simply don't belong in the realm of Romantic Gothicism. They can't, really, because at their core, they are nothing more than wandering, decaying carcasses—merely aesthetic window dressing used to decorate the scenery of post-apocalyptic sci-fi.

Tyler Clark86 said:This feels lightyears away from Twilight, which actually makes it look pretty interesting to me—honestly, I'd much rather have this than some tired remake or a massive "spectacle" like Hunger Games.

Personally, I see this as nothing more than a pathetic attempt to manufacture a zombie Twilight
.
It is almost transparent; they even went so far as to cast Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart as the leads.

stormypanther39 said:So, am I allowed to volunteer even if I don't have any prior experience? If that's an option, do theater companies just take anyone who shows interest, even people who haven't really read much? I've heard you actually need to be reading, specifically that you need to be a frequentreader, and if that's true, could someone tell me exactly what that entails? Or does anyone know which specific plays or works I should look into? Because if it's necessary, I'll start reading whatever I need to.

You aren't using any checkmarks anywhere... so I'm honestly not sure if those bolded words are meant to refer back to the word reading....?

Yes, well... the original Red Dawn from 1984 is simply superior...

And I am not merely making this claim out of childhood nostalgia; I actually sat down and watched it for the very first time just a few weeks ago.

Ultimately, the older film possessed a level of brutality that this new version failed to replicate.

Sophia Thomas7 said:Check this out first.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Hunger_Games

It looks like someone pulled a fast one on someone else...

Take note of these (sequel/prequel titles):

The Hunger Games (Cassandra Clare)

The Hunger Games (Philip Reeve)

lonelynx44 said:So, I’m actually reading this book right now and—full disclosure—it’s definitely teen drama territory. A bit sappy and cringe at times? Yeah. But honestly, the pacing is insane. It’s super fast-paced and I’m digging it. I really think this movie could bring something fresh to the big screen, which feels like a rare win lately.
The books move at breakneck speed—one mystery gets solved in a heartbeat, then boom, a new one pops up. The settings, the timelines, the characters—everything just keeps shifting. For me, it’s just perfect, mindless fun when you want to zone out. 🙂I’m betting the movie follows suit, especially since they’ve got those talented young actors lined up (you know, the kid from Sweeney Todd, plus Lena, Jonathan, Lilly, and a whole bunch of others) 🙂
I'm definitely watching. 🙂

Is it possible that this book is actually...?



.

I just finished watching the original Red Dawn (1984)...

It’s a decent watch, but...

...given that it was produced back in 1984, the premise is hard to swallow. In terms of sheer lack of realism, it feels very similar to those old war movies they used to make here back in the sixties...

They even include a monument to fallen soldiers in the film.

nimblemarlin6 said:The trailer looks great.
In the original concept, the catalyst for the Chinese invasion of the USA was the massive American debt owed to China; essentially, the Chinese would occupy the USA "to collect on the debt."
China will likely be more powerful than the USA soon, if they aren't already, so that might actually carry some weight. But as it stands, the idea of a tiny North Korea occupying Americais so incredibly far-fetchedthat the whole thing sounds completely absurd and ridiculous from the get-go.

They made it unrealistic on purpose...

Otherwise, they might have accidentally handed the Chinese an interesting strategic idea... and you can't exactly go around blaming other (more powerful) nations for everything these days.

.

This trilogy completely altered my perception of reality:

1. Dark City (1998)
2. The Truman Show (1998)
3. The Matrix (1999)

Varvara's sword

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zmHtG8-dqSk

I remember heading to the theater at nine years old with my entire class...

.

It’s a bit tedious, though I won't pretend it drags on forever...

There were really only two scenes in this film worth the time spent watching it...

The shortened shootout sequence



And that final scene...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5V6GHnxEJjg

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1336608/

Trailer:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rrdXYIKVsPc

Review:

http://www.fak-tvojfilm.net/novi-fil...-rock-of-ages/

Grace King21 said:Man, I was reading the plot summary for this movie recently and it just seemed so incredibly stupid.

The endless, gratuitous violence fails to compensate for an incredibly thin plot and a truly pathetic, irritating performance by Blake Lively.

A disappointing showing from Oliver Stone...