Joined January 15th, 2008
This story was done before in 1971 "Man in the Wilderness" with Richard Harris and John Huston (name changed to Zach Bass). It was good then, should be good again. If you read about the real man (Hugh Glass) you'll be amazed!
Ryan in = I'm out!
As much as I love Harrison, Rutger Hauer made Blade Runner interesting to watch -- (that and the visuals). Rutger's performance blew the doors off everyone in that movie. And no, don't bring Rutger back somehow. A Blade Runner sequel with 70+ yr old Harrison -- only as a link to new characters, if at all. He needs to do more dramas or comedy and drop the action stuff -- it's getting a bit sad to watch. Yeah I know, the money grab is too easy to turn down. Personally I think he'd be great in a dramatic Western.
Really enjoyed the movie. The TV show sounds like another Sherlock Holmes bastardization. Enough already.
Remake of a really good 1971 Richard Harris film "Man in the Wilderness". I always thought this should be remade for contemporary audiences, and here it is! Hard to beat Richard Harris and John Houston though.
Fool me once...
A bit early for April fools.
Orci Is No Longer directing Star Trek 3. Orci Is No Longer writing Star Trek 3. next... Orci Is No Longer producing Star Trek 3. Orci Is No Longer.
LOL, another... "Ryan Leston did claim to ease drop on some of the conversations..." Eavesdrop! On topic -- Love that they are using real locales and people!
Music is horrible -- distracting. If your goal is for us to watch with only staging in mind, omit the music all together. You should be drawn in not pushed out. Just hit mute folks.
There was no "who shot first", one shot only and it was Han.
F##K Yes, we want it!
Personally, I think 20th is jumping the shark here. 20th will take a big hit on this franchise, if between the production costs of third of a billion plus (and marketing on top of that each) is true. To be considered profitable it'll have to hit a bare minimum 900 mil per pic. For sequels! I just don't see that happening for all three. Avatar 1 was a fluke, very pretty with a ham-fisted story -- the wow factor visually was what carried it. I can't see the next three installments being any different. I can't imagine the visual styling/novelty will carry for three more installments. Dessert with no entree - fool me once as they say. 2 will do okay, but 3 and 4 ouch! I hope to be dis-proven as I want 20th to stick around, but I have a bad feeling. Beating folks over the head with a "message" will further limit the appeal. If however done in a clever subtle way it will not be an issue. But based on the last installment, a clever and subtle message is not in Cameron's quiver. He's a stylist not a story teller.
Into Darkness? Maybe he plans on omitting lens flares. lol
Yeah, who are these people? Dufus caper flick with a sperm macguffin - paaahlease! Probably took 5 minutes to write.
As I posted in the other Lockout thread... I wanted to like this movie (I like Guy in most of his stuff). Sad to report, this movie was utter garbage. CGI was SyFy TV level stuff. The editing was horrible. Huge plot holes. Cheap sets - you could see them move when bumped into or hit. The story was a long string of cliche's loosely strung together. Real disappointment. Better luck on your next outing Mr. Pearce.
I wanted to like this movie (I like Guy in most of his stuff). Sad to report, this movie was utter garbage. CGI was SyFy TV level stuff. The editing was horrible. Huge plot holes. Cheap sets - you could see them move when bumped into or hit. The story was a long string of cliche's loosely strung together. Real disappointment. Better luck on your next outing Mr. Pearce.
It it April already?
Zonbie killin' fun! How can you not want to see this campy sh*t!
Saw it already, it was called Wolverine.