 |
|
a.k.a. I Was a Teen-Aged Were-Hunk... |
Post Reply 
|
Page <1234 5> |
| Author |
 Share Topic Printable Version Delicious Digg Facebook Furl Google Boomarks Google Buzz MySpace Newsvine reddit StumbleUpon Translate Twitter Windows Live Yahoo Bookmarks Topic Search  Topic Options
|
BurnHollywoodBurn 
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum 
Joined: February 03 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 3557 |
 Post Options
 Quote Reply
 Topic: a.k.a. I Was a Teen-Aged Were-Hunk...Posted: March 05 2010 at 9:19pm |
|
|
|
The Four Horsemen of the Moviepocalypse: uncalled for sequels/remakes/reboots, 3-D surcharges, untalented "celebrities", and anything with Michael Bay's name attached to it.
|
|
 |
|
|
checkitjess
Berry New Comer 
Joined: March 05 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: March 05 2010 at 5:37pm |
|
i enjoyed watching this movie together with my friends who are there to tease and somehow amaze on the special effects...
|
|
|
|
|
kennyshafard
Berry New Comer
Joined: February 14 2010 Location: Carlsbad, CA Online Status: Offline Posts: 4 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: February 24 2010 at 9:51pm |
|
Well movies like these are usually girl's-favorites. Who in return take their bfs to the cinemas as well, which in return increases the ticket sales. So basically all those girls who actually fall for this PERFECT-LOVER crap need to get a hold of them selves ...
|
|
|
|
|
movieman
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: May 23 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 220 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: January 30 2010 at 8:38pm |
|
I just saw this for $4.25 at the discount theater, and have to say that after hearing the polarized reaction from people and seeing it for myself, that I was pleasantly surprised. But I digress by agreeing with the critical consensus on RT: " Outsiders are likely to be turned off by its slow pace, relentlessly downcast tone, and excessive length."
Believe me, if you haven't read the books(from reading this forum, I doubt anyone here has), then read no further and just skip the movie. Just like with Watchmen, it will seem long and moody, and many of the conversations will make little sense or seem to have any meaning. Those who remember how I was rather disappointed the first movie because it failed to adequately capture the feel and tone of the movie without seeming banal or awkward. Fortunately the sequel has been able to take the novel and turn it into a enjoyable movie(for the initiated anyway) thanks to better production values, a bigger budget, and a new director to guide it in the right direction. Director Chris Weitz seems to have a keen awareness of what he's doing, and he realizes that the excessively proper dialogue shared between characters is best when read on paper, and not when said by real human actors. The special effects have greatly improved also, especially in the fight scenes, which have a lot more detail and motion to them that the first one clunked on. Taylor Lautner and Kristin Stewart both give serviceable performances that make us believe their gradual romance. One of the problems in the movie I had however, was Robert Pattinson. I remember Edward is supposed to be this tortured being who's insecure with himself, but man, I don't remember Pattinson delivering every line as if he were constipated in the first one the way he does here. Fortunately, he's gone for two-thirds of the movie, so it's only as a minor flaw. And clocking in at over 2 hours, the movie feels like it could have been trimmed down at least 10-15 minutes. As I said, I enjoyed this film for it was quite better than I was anticipating it to be, and while the Twilight series will never be the new Harry Potter, it will still deliver for everyone who has read the book what they were expecting.
|
|
|
|
|
GTAHater767
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: October 25 2009 Location: I shall not say Online Status: Offline Posts: 1128 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: January 27 2010 at 8:05pm |
|
There's a huge mound of things I could say about this movie.
First, when I pondered how bad the 4 or 5 main stars were, I started to realize that either Worst Cast or Worst Ensemble Cast would be a good idea.
Second, around where I live, only half of the females I asked said they liked this movie. Anyone, male or female, whom Pattinson, Stewart, and Lautner's appearance actually enamors THAT heavily...we need to approach them with caution.
Third, if there were a category for Worst Movie Everyone Saw (I hope you know the requirements there), this, along with Terminator Salvation, 2012, and Angels & Demons would be runners up, and Revenge of the Fallen would take it home.
|
|
|
RAZZIE Dirty Dozen: Battlefield Earth, F G Fingered, Pluto Nash, A Sound of Thunder, Alone in the Dark, Dirty Love, Rise Silver Srfr, Daddy Day Camp, IKWKM, The Love Guru, All About Steve, Airbender
|
|
|
|
|
Michaels
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: May 12 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2848 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: January 21 2010 at 8:24am |
|
No one here is going to disagree with you about that.
|
|
|
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)
|
|
|
|
|
TaRaN-RoD
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: November 20 2009 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 154 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: January 20 2010 at 6:20pm |
|
I know for the MTV but I never thought MTW Awards have no credibility.... those are stupid awards for teenagers, they are stupid! So no I won't lose respect for the human race because of MTV Stupid Awards!
|
|
|
|
|
Michaels
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: May 12 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2848 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: January 20 2010 at 5:08am |
|
Well, get ready to lose respect for the human race, because whether we razz it or not, it will sweep the MTV Movie, Teen's Choice, Kid's Choice, and People's Choice awards, just like the first one did. That, or maybe "Avatar" will swing in to save the day instead -- fingers crossed it does.
|
|
|
"Just once I want my life to be like an 80's movie ... but, no, no. John Hughes did not direct my life." ("Easy A", 2010)
|
|
|
|
|
TaRaN-RoD
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: November 20 2009 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 154 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: January 19 2010 at 6:57pm |
|
But ''Worst Picture'' ..... SURE!
Or... I'll lose respect for the human race! |
|
|
|
|
hard hearted hannah
Berry New Comer
Joined: January 18 2010 Online Status: Offline Posts: 1 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: January 18 2010 at 10:40pm |
|
please people, don't lose objectivity
more... is let driven for the hate
|
|
|
|
|
TaRaN-RoD
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: November 20 2009 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 154 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: January 16 2010 at 8:36pm |
Don't even want to argue against the stupid thing you just said! But at least, I'll put my little word:  |
|
|
|
|
moviewizguy
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: January 23 2007 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2136 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: January 16 2010 at 5:18pm |
Wow. So much hate for a movie that does not apply to you. Let's be honest here. The direction by Mr. Weitz was arguably better than that of Hardwicke's. He gave the film a distinctive look. It was beautiful. The Visual Effects were great too, considering the low budget compared to movies with $150 million. And the actors were good too but that's just me. You guys can argue against that. |
|
|
|
|
TaRaN-RoD
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: November 20 2009 Location: Canada Online Status: Offline Posts: 154 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: January 16 2010 at 10:03am |
|
By FAR, the worst movie of the year!!!!!! Really deserves and the ''Worst Picture'' Razzie Award, and the ''Worst Picture of the Decade''! Completly!!!!
Robert Pattison: ''Worst Actor'' Kristen Stewart: ''Worst Actress'' Robert Pattison and Kristen Stewart: ''Worst Screen Couple'' Taylor Lautner: ''Worst Supporting Actor'' Chris Weitz: ''Worst Director'' Melissa Rosenberg: ''Worst Screenplay'' And a special ''Worst Visual Effects'' razzie Award!!! This is what I think of you, cast and crew of Twilight! |
|
|
|
|
Michaels
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: May 12 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2848 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: December 08 2009 at 3:42pm |
Well, it's good to know someone agrees with me about why "Watchmen" failed. However, in terms of "New Moon" making "ONLY" $300 million, that's not a B.O. bomb by anybody's standards. Plus, a third movie of the series is in the works, and there's talk about making two movies out of the fourth book. Hopefully by then, teenage girls will move on to something else. |
|
|
|
|
movieman
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: May 23 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 220 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: December 08 2009 at 7:39am |
|
Just as I predicted, this movie suffered the same fate as Watchmen
with its significant drop after its opening weekend. So far it has grossed $255 million, which means its opening of $140 million still accounts for 56% of its total gross. By the end of its run, it'll be lucky if it makes $300 million. Then again, even if it stops making money right now, it will still be considered a success seeing how it only cost $50 million to make. By Hollywood's perspective, that makes it a $205 million surplus, unlike Watchmen, which cost $130 million and only grossed $107. And I agree with Michaels about why the uninitiated were disappointed with Watchmen. A lot of the backstory and character development is given in between chapters through the Under the Hood excerpts, letters between characters, newspaper reports, etc. I have to say that if I hadn't read the novel before watching the movie, I probably would have been baffled by a lot of it which raises a good question as to how well Watchmen stands on its own. While I thoroughly enjoyed the movie, I do think that its biggest strength and biggest weakness is that it feels more like a conversion of the book, rather than an interpretation. |
|
|
|
|
Michaels
RAZZIE® Inner Sanctum
Joined: May 12 2008 Online Status: Offline Posts: 2848 |
Post Options
Quote Reply
Posted: November 29 2009 at 4:30pm |
|
I think like reading the comic "Watchmen" before seeing the movie (in which not doing so resulted in some people giving it bad reviews for not understanding what it was they watched), you needed to know about the old 80s TV series or the current comic book series to understand "GI Joe", otherwise you wouldn't get any of the little in jokes they made or who anyone was. The difference being while "Watchmen" was good for what it was (it would have worked a lot better as a TV mini-series on HBO), "GI Joe" missed its mark and was just a live action cartoon gone wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
Post Reply
|
Page <1234 5> |
| Forum Jump | Forum Permissions You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot create polls in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum |
