Official Friday Est: I FRANK (2.82), RIDE (6.3), LONE (3.6), RYAN (2.6), HUSTLE (1.96), FROZEN (2.1)

[a2k]

Eckhart probably isn't getting as many starring role offers as he hoped for post-TDK.

Well they only showed half his face in TDK, and the other half acted better.

[ky02121]

Aaron obviously had bills to pay. Maybe bought a new house with the cash. I'll let this one slide. He's better than this.

[Fancyarcher]

Eckhart needs to do another Nolan movie.

 

He should of auditioned for a role in Interstellar.

[Mojoguy]

He should of auditioned for a role in Interstellar.

I still remember that Nolan reused half the cast of Inception for TDKR. Talk about lazy!

Edited January 25, 2014 by Mojoguy

[Fancyarcher]

I still remember than Nolan reused half the cast of Inception for TDKR. Talk about lazy!

 

Also surprisingly the film lacks British actors (aside from Michael Caine and a few others).

 

I guess Nolan is trying to embrace the American in him now (he is half-American after all).

Edited January 25, 2014 by Fancyarcher

[grey ghost]

I still remember that Nolan reused half the cast of Inception for TDKR. Talk about lazy!

 

Lazy or loyal?

[MovieMan89]

Somewhere fishnets is Shitto-ing herself with joy and shrieking "down with nepotism!!"

[DAR]

If this means Eckhart does a few Thank You For Smoking's that wouldn't be a bad thing

Edited January 25, 2014 by DAR

[AdamKendall]

Who thought I, Frankenstein was a good idea? ... looked like shit in trailers, does shit business.

[Mojoguy]

Who thought I, Frankenstein was a good idea? ... looked like shit in trailers, does shit business.

From producers of the Underworld films.

[TLK]

From producers of the Underworld films.

 

They needed Kate Beckinsale. Van Helsing  was also a mostly shit movie but she helped save it.

[kowhite]

They needed Kate Beckinsale. Van Helsing  was also a mostly shit movie but she helped save it.

Oh god no she didn't. Tight outfits? No. Horrible accent? Yes.Van Helsing was a disaster.Underworld though? Eh, I enjoyed them. Unfortunately, Eckhart isn't fuckin sexy wearing tight leather so, this movie doesn't fly.

[Mojoguy]

Underworld though? Eh, I enjoyed them. Unfortunately, Eckhart isn't fuckin sexy wearing tight leather so, this movie doesn't fly.

Guys don't care about a shirtless Echhart, and the female audience typically rolls their eyes at these terrible CGI action flicks.

At least those bad Underworld movies had Kate Beckinsale.

[TLK]

Oh god no she didn't. Tight outfits? No. Horrible accent? Yes.Van Helsing was a disaster.Underworld though? Eh, I enjoyed them. Unfortunately, Eckhart isn't fuckin sexy wearing tight leather so, this movie doesn't fly.

 

Her accent was beyond horrible but I am sure she helped with the box office. The movie had a price tag of $160 million and it made $300 million Worldwide so that's not very good but hardly a disaster.

[K1stpierre]

From producers of the Underworld films.

I liked the first two Underworld films.

[kowhite]

Her accent was beyond horrible but I am sure she helped with the box office. The movie had a price tag of $160 million and it made $300 million Worldwide so that's not very good but hardly a disaster.

It wasn't a complete box office disaster. Though I don't think her presence mattered much of anything. Movie had a large campaign, trailers looked ...well, they showed some potential. But universal was banking on a franchise starting hit. It definitely failed that.That being said...in terms of filmmaking quality, I've no qualms calling it an outright disaster. It's truly a horrible movie. That 2.3 multiplier says it all. Edited January 25, 2014 by kowhite

[K1stpierre]

 

 

Oh god no she didn't. Tight outfits? No. Horrible accent? Yes.Van Helsing was a disaster.Underworld though? Eh, I enjoyed them. Unfortunately, Eckhart isn't fuckin sexy wearing tight leather so, this movie doesn't fly.

Yeah, Van Helsing was pretty bad. Couldn't do much to save that one, same goes for this one. Difference though was that Van Helsing looked to be good vs. this always looked like shit.

Edited January 25, 2014 by k1stpierre

[kowhite]

Yeah, Van Helsing was pretty bad. Couldn't do much to save that one, same goes for this one. Difference though was that Van Helsing looked to be good vs. this always looked like shit.

Yeah, Van Helsing had a solid marketing campaign and production value. I was excited and on top of that...it had a great hook. I WANTED it to be good. Big budget monster mash, he'll yeah. I still would like to see a good movie trading off that idea.This? Who asked for this? Modern day Frankenstein, cept, it has nothing to do with Frankenstein?Seriously, wtf? Edited January 25, 2014 by kowhite

[Mojoguy]

I liked the first two Underworld films.

Me too. But they were definitely brainless guilty pleasure flicks for me. Also I would have enjoyed them much less if Kate Beckinsale wasn't in them.

[Mojoguy]

 

 

 

Yeah, Van Helsing was pretty bad. Couldn't do much to save that one, same goes for this one. Difference though was that Van Helsing looked to be good vs. this always looked like shit.

Van Helsing pissed me off so much. I'm glad it didn't kill Jackman's career considering how bad it was.