Rovex
-
Posts
913 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Blogs
Gallery
Annual Subscriptions
Media Demo
Posts posted by Rovex
-
-
Dredd because of its pitiful box office, The Hobbit because its miles better than the critics say.
-
Has to be Titanic. Sure SW was huge, but it didnt destroy everything else in the way Titanic did, Jaws kind of stopped that claim, indeed Jaws was a bigger step up from The Exorcist than SW was over Jaws. In fact given that Jaws and especially The Exorcist excludes kids i'd say they were far more impressive.Only 5 Movies in the 90s took more than half as much Domestic as Titanic and nothing took even half WW (possibly just EP1, i forget non-3D release figure). Nothing compares. What really sets Titanic ahead is the ticket sales, excuses like inflation and surcharges simply dont stand up against those sales.
-
I have no argument to make and im not going to break it down into why, I just think TA is over rated simply because it didn't like it as much as most others did. It was decent thats all, no more, no less. Im not even going to compare it to any other movie because I think thats irrelevant. Nothing much was wrong with it, it just seemed like less than the sum of its parts to me.The Hunger Games. Ive seen it twice and i still dont see what the fuss is about. A good enough idea and some great acting from Lawrence, but not much else about it was all that great.SkyFall. A really good movie, but its not the best Bond. On a par with CR and better than anything else Bond for a decade or 2. Honestly though i think its gross is fair because Bonds have been under grossing in my view.
-
HJOs head got the genes that Anne Hathaways face needed.
-
The difference between Spielberg and Cameron is that Cameron does action, great female characters and emotion, Spielberg in his old age does sentimentality. AI sucked from the halfway point, really really sucked.
-
Well that was a pointless read..I can see why Radagast might be a little annoying if you had forgotten that this is based on a KIDS book, but how on earth is he the new Jar Jar Binks?? He wasnt on any level as annoying, stupid, inept, racially insensitive, badly slapstick or ever-present as Jar Jar. Even Jar Jar could have been tolerated for 5 minutes, which is about all the screen time Radagast got, it was the fact that he didnt go away that killed.All this talk of bloat is BS. Turning a line from a book into a scene in a movie isnt bloat. Its only boat if badly done, and i dont think it was. Some of it didn't flow very well i grant you, i had issues with the rock giants scene, it just seemed to happen out of nowhere with no set up, but little was pointless to those who havent read the book.I do think the pacing could use some work, little happened then everything happened and characters were lost in the mess, but i didnt feel that I needed to know who every Dwarf was in detail. The main point is the main story and the main characters.So no one died, so what, does someone have to die for some of you to care? People really are jaded these days aren't they?!
-
Some of those are a bit nick-picky and the Jurassic Park one is actually wrong. People assume all dinosaurs were stupid, that's just not true. They had a longer evolution than most modern animals, and while the big herbivores were as dumb and most modern herbivores, the Rapters were no more stupid than dogs or big cats and possibly smarter.I hate that scene so much.But, hey, here's a great article that shows 10 great classic films and totally dumb aspects of them:http://movies.msn.co...spx?news=163891Every gripe is absolutely correct. But, when the movie is great otherwise, it acts as smoke and mirrors to hide these glaring flaws. Point being, since movies are 2 hours long, it's inevitable that there are moments, or even main plot points that can be torn apart. And usually more than just one, or ten. Movies aren't perfect, but they don't have to be.
-
Not at all. It has more and even the best CGI is still clearly CGI. The clarity of HFR doesnt help and makes it look more obvious, but it looks like 'normal' high end CGI when viewed in 2D and 3D. The backgrounds and visual effects are very very good indeed, the creatures look like CGI creatures, like they do in every movie.LOTR is soft, even the Blu-rays are soft, the CGI is easier to hide.
-
For the record i said it would do 1.2 - 1.7 If it broke out, not just a flat out 1.7.
-
I don't understand the polarisation people feel over this movie. It would seem to be based on whether people care about the Dwarfs or not. Even then, how some one can walk out on it is beyond me.
-
Absolutely, there was a small cheer in all 3 of my viewings for him.Since the Critics keep on mentioning TPM ill contrast it with my cinema experience of the 2. When i saw the Hobbit people seemed nervous and quiet at the start, i guess the reviews dampened expectations, but as it went on the excitement built up, cheers for Gollum, cheers and claps at the end. When i saw TPM there was a huge cheer at the start when the iconic text scroll started, by the end people were quiet, no clapping, one or two people seriously pissed by it.I think a number of critics simply didnt want to like this movie or had invested so much in it before they had seen it that anything they saw would have disappointed them.
-
1
-
-
Seen it 3 times now, and at no point was i bored.
Having seen the reviews I was expecting the first act to be really really slow and boring. It wasnt. If you disliked the Shire scenes there is seriously something wrong. Sure it could be trimmed a little, but it was entertaining, it wasnt full of fart jokes and the Dwarfs personalities were established as well as 12 characters can be in the given time.
At times the movie seemed a little rushed, not slow and once outside the shire the action was non stop. It was considerably more tense and dark than I was expecting. I didn't get a sense that there was little at stake.
Having not read the book before seeing the film i didnt know what was 'bloat' and what wasnt. It all seemed to fit fine and little was pointless. The Stone Giants scene was a bit random and if anything i would have liked the pace slowed a little around that.
Gollum was fantastic. He seemed smart and confident, unlike in LOTR, and was very much more threatening. None of the characters annoyed me, even Galadriel wasnt as smug and irritating as she was in LOTR!
The CG, the score, the cinematography was all lovely, it was just beautiful to look at, so even when the pace was slower it still entertained. It seemed shorter than its run time to me, that alone proves to me that the critics are completely wrong about it.
A+
-
3
-
-
If you are a fan of the movies and dont dislike the Hobbit book (if you have even read it) then there is no reason not to go to see the Hobbit movie. Some contraction might be expected because thats the way the industry has been headed, but not this much.By the way I can relate to the Dwarfs, their pain was quite palpable. Aragorn i could care less about frankly.I have been trying to explain for weeks to this board that The Hobbit book never had the passion The LOTR trilogy books had.I even said that I didn't believe in the sales figures for The Hobbit book and people dismised me.People go to see The Hobbit film because it is linked with the LOTR films, not the other way around.As I predicted, TH disapoints because it is not a passion inducing story BUT I think the TH 2 & 3 will be more succesful because there will be Smaug, big battles and set pieces.
-
If you say so..No he wasn't the draw, the story was the draw, he was just the character people loved most (again, gollum aside) it's hard for people to relate to a bunch of dwarfs.
-
All easy to say with hindsight.. I still say that the movies created an audience who never read the books, and still havent, and i still think if it finishes under $400M then those fans haven't turned out.Both are books but one is a passion-inducing book. THG is a passion-inducer as of now (don`t know about 10 years from now but movies will be done in less than half of that so who cares) TH was never passion-inducer. LOTR was. LOTR created a Tolkien cult. TH was liked but it wasn`t discussed 24-7. It was,yeah, I like it, cool dragon, now so you think that Frodo was a hero or a coward? Is Sam the real hero here? Etc.
-
Meh.. didnt do it for me. Im a fan of the movies, not the books, but i dont see the love for him all that much, anywhere. Im not saying he was unpopular, but he wasnt the draw.That's bullshit, Aragorn was the hero, he was the human character for us to relate to. There was no-one else more popular than him (gollum aside) unless you're a fanboy who loves Gandalf. Aragorn was the outcast, he was the leader and characters like gimli and Legolas were his side-kicks.
-
This is my problem. Im annoyed its likely to get less than THG not because I dislike THG, but because it demonstrates that the audience has contracted so much from the original trilogy. Both are books, but one has history, so where is the audience?So if this does 325 whats that in 2003 dollars....and take out 3D. Thats how much of an audience Hobbit lost.........just checked and using about 280 mill Hobbit adjusts to 218 mill in 03.....big drop from Shriekipoo.
-
I see your point, but was Aragorn really the draw in LOTR? I really dont see it. Pretty much everyone else was more popular than him, besides LOTR ended on a high, FC came off the back of a not very good third movie.It`s totally realistic to expect less. TH =/= LOTR. If this argument is considered valid against critical bashing that TH isn`t as good as LOTR because it isn`t LOTR than it should be valid for explaining why OW did not blow past $100 mio or past Shriekapoo adjusted. It isn`t LOTR. Simple.This is comparable to FC really. Same universe, younger versions of familiar characters but! No Wolverine (no Aragorn), it`s a prequel (we know how the story ends and getting there is never as compelling as when you don`t know what`s gonna happen), new characters don`t register like old ones.
-
I wont be, its not the dollar gross that bothers me, its the audience contraction.
-
1
-
-
I agree, i can only hope that the reviews stunted the opening, but the WOM will restore its proper total gross. The critics and the GA are very much in disagreement over this movie. This isnt like Twilight, that has a built in audience, TH is a movie thats accessible to anyone, and doesnt have a rabid fanbase of tweens.I'm not saying $150m was ever realistic, because that was always a ridiculous number to begin with, but I'm sorry, some people here are acting like a $100-120m opening weekend was always impossibility. LOTR was and still is one of the most beloved, popular franchises of all time. It wasn't at all unrealistic to predict an opening around or just above $100m for such a massive project such as this.
-
Well it does to me. Over $400M should have been doable, its still a massive audience contraction.No, no, no. Under THG does not suck, your high expectations suck.
-
I suppose the record is a nice thing, but its still less than I wanted. The RT score sucks, but the' A' Cinemascore is gratifying and is what counts for legs. Im still hoping for 350M, but under THG sucks.
-
Oh come on this is pure trolling. Disappointing or not this is not going to be as low as BD2. You just want it to be that low.At this point, either Hobbit will be WW 2012 #4 or #5 or even $6 (in case it loses to BD2 ...).
-
This is really disappointing. The critics have a LOT to answer for, they are just plain wrong about the movie, no two ways about it. I just hope the GA gives this legs.
Avatar: The Way of Water | 16 DEC 2022 | Don't worry guys, critics like it
in Box Office Discussion
Posted